London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 3 Contents

Executive Summary 3 Scope and Purpose 3 Overview 5 Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives 8 Progress on the Sub Regional Development Frameworks 14 Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and other Mayoral Strategies 14 Progress on Major Development Locations 16 Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity 16 London Development Database 19 London Planning Awards 2006 20 Update on Inter Regional Issues 20 London Plan Early Alterations 20 London Plan Further Alterations 21 Review of Mayoral Powers 21 Looking to the Future 22

Appendix 1 Key Performance Indicators 23 Appendix 2 Contextual Indicators 51 Appendix 3 London Planning Awards 54 Appendix 4 Progress on Opportunity Areas/ Areas for Intensification 55 Appendix 5 National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators 58 Appendix 6 Affordability thresholds for social/intermediate housing 60 Appendix 7 Mayoral Activity on Development Plans 62

Index of Data Tables

Table 1 Summary of Progress on Key Performance Indicators 5 Table 2 Proposed new London sub-regions 14 Table 3 List of London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance 14 Table 4 List of London Plan Best Practice Guidance 15 Table 5 List of Mayoral Strategies 15 Table 6 Planning Decisions made by the Mayor 17 Table 7 Progress with borough Development Plan Documents 19

Appendix 1 Table 8 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London 23 Table 9 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London 24 (by borough) Table 10 Density of residential development by borough 25 Table 11 Planning permissions in relation to SRQ Matrix 26 Table 12 Changes in open space due to new development 27 Table 13 Number of housing completions by borough 28 Table 14 Housing completion trends 29 Table 15 Residential Planning Approvals 29 Table 16/17 Affordable Housing Provision by tenure/by borough 31 Table 18 2003/4-2005/6 Affordable housing out-turn 32 Table 19 2005/6 Affordable housing out-turn chart 33 Table 20 Affordable housing policy by borough 34 Table 21 Workers in London 2001 35 Table 22 London Out Commuting 1990-2001 35 Table 23 London Out Commuting 2001-2006 35 Table 24 Ratio of Office planning permissions to 3 year completions 36 Table 25 Age specific unemployment rates for White and BME groups 37 Table 26 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families 39 Table 27 Public and private transport indexes 40 Table 28 Passengers on the River Thames 41 Table 29 Cargo trade on the River Thames 42 Table 30 Employment Floorspace by PTAL zone 44 Table 31 Changes in protected habitat due to new development 44 Table 32 London’s Household waste recycling rate 1996/97 – 2005/06 46 Table 33 London waste authority household recycling rates 46 Table 34 Regional Household recycling rates 47 Table 35 Total Municipal Waste in London 47 Table 36 London CO2 Emissions 1990-2003 49 Table 37 Proportion of Listed Buildings at risk in London 50 Executive Summary

1. 2006 has been another dynamic and successful year for planning in London. Further advances have been made in implementing the policies of the London Plan and many of the plan’s Key Performance Indicators in Appendix 1 show positive trends.

2. The London Plan continues to provide the clarity, certainty, geographical sensitivity and co-ordinated strategic approach needed to address the complex issues and unique pressures facing London. The plan provides the strategic framework to guide all levels of government, investors and other decision makers in making choices that will contribute to London’s development as an exemplary, sustainable, world city. As these trends become established and new issues emerge (tracked by the series of Annual Monitoring Reports), the plan’s policies have to be refined and updated. Thus, in 2006, a limited number of alterations were made to the original 2004 document.

3. The 2004 plan itself proposed that, at the earliest opportunity, Early Alterations should be prepared dealing with housing provision, minerals and waste. These were published in December 2006. Further Alterations have been proposed to give much greater weight to tackling the crucial issue of climate change and to refine the plan’s approach to other matters including a more integrated framework to address the problems facing London’s suburbs. The Further Alterations were subject to wide ranging consultation during 2006 and will be considered at an Examination in Public in June 2007, for publication early in 2008.

4. To provide the essential stepping stone to guide implementation of strategic policy at more local levels, the Mayor published five Sub Regional Development Frameworks (SRDFs) in Spring 2006. The Further Alterations set out a platform from which to revise SRDFs on a sounder sub regional basis and to focus them more tightly on coordinated implementation of policy by a range of strategic stakeholders.

5. In terms of development, there has been continued investment in housing across the city since the last AMR was published. The original housing target has been exceeded by a substantial margin, with over 28,000 additional units delivered in 2005/6. The past year has also seen planning permission granted for a range of major development schemes anticipated in the original plan. Particular progress has been made in planning for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics and their long term legacy with the submission of 3 planning applications in February 2007.

Scope and Purpose

06. This is the third Annual Monitoring Report (AMR3). The AMR is the central component of the statutory monitoring process required to assess the effectiveness of the London Plan. It takes account of national monitoring indicators, as well as those set out in the plan and others which illuminate more specific challenges for London.

07. AMR3 assesses the overall performance of the plan relative to key issues and trends reported during 2006. The figures in the Appendices generally relate to the period April 2005-March 2006, although in some cases it is only previous years’ data that are available. The report draws on many data sources, but of particular importance is the London Development Database. Where possible a time series of data is given to help show trends. The Appendices also note that there are some areas where proxy data have to be used, where data are not up to date or not available at all. As a result of experience in preparing AMRs, it is proposed to change some of the Key Performance Indicators through the Further Alterations to the London Plan.

08. A key role for the Annual Monitoring Reports is to help identify areas for review of the London Plan. AMR2 highlighted some areas for review which have been incorporated into the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan. AMR3 provides a useful context for the Further Alterations in the run up to the Examination in Public

09. The scope of the Annual Monitoring Report is outlined in chapter 6B of the London Plan. In line with this, it has been drafted to reflect the overall policy direction of the plan and does not attempt to measure and monitor each of its policies individually. In September 2006 the Mayor received useful feedback from DCLG on the London Plan AMRs. This supported their focused approach and concise presentation as well as suggesting some refinements, which this AMR seeks to address.

10. This London Plan Annual Monitoring Report should not be confused with either the Mayor’s Annual Report or the State of the Environment Report.

11. The Mayor’s Annual Report is required by the GLA Act 1999. The fifth report was published in May 2006 covering the period 2005/06 and describes the Mayor and GLA’s objectives and targets, performance in the fifth year of operation, how well the Authority has engaged with Londoners in setting these objectives and how it will review and improve its operation to deliver best value to Londoners. The report is available on the website www.london.gov.uk

12. The State of the Environment Report is also required by the GLA Act 1999 and must be produced every 4 years. The first Report was published in May 2003 and is available on the website www.london.gov.uk. The report is currently being updated and will be published in May 2007. The State of Environment Report is a valuable source of detailed environmental data covering 36 specific indicators. One of the main purposes of the update is to measure changes against the baseline set in 2003. There is some limited overlap with some of the key performance indicators detailed in Appendix 1 of this report. Overview

13. A simplified assessment of the plan’s performance against its 25 Key Performance Indicators (KPI) is given in Table 1 below. A fuller description of the indicators is given in Appendix 1.

Table 1 Summary Progress against Key Performance Indicators

| KPI | Progress | Comment | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land. A minimum five per cent improvement over each five-year period. | + | Ahead of target overall despite a marginal decrease this year | | 2 Increasing the density of residential development. Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix | = | Minimum levels being achieved although maximum levels being exceeded | | 3 Protection of open space. No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development. | = | A slight loss of protected open space this year although more than made up for by gains in open space. | | 4 An increased supply of new homes. At least 23 000 units per year. | + | Another increase in completions to 123% of target. | | 5 An increased supply of affordable homes. Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016. | = | Completion of 7600 units is below the 50% target but takes into account other policy objectives. | | 6 Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in London | = | Only reliably reported through the census. | | 7 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market | + | Current ratio is 8.4 x completion rate. | | 8 Direction of economic and population growth to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfill the priority to east London | + | Increases expected as regeneration takes off. | | 9 Age specific unemployment rates for BME groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011 | - | Target unlikely to be met as it represents broad social aim | | 10 Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011. | - | Target unlikely to be met as it represents broad social aim | | 11 Improvements in performance against all agreed floor targets. | + | Generally positive trends with around 66% of targets representing improvements | | 12 Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head | + | Target being comfortably achieved as public transport use has grown and private transport use has reduced | | 13 From 2001-2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and | + | Overall decline of 4.2% use of private vehicles since 2001. | | Traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent. | Passenger services are significantly up while freight cargo is slightly down. | |---|---| | A five per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011 | On target with existing and planned investment in public transport. | | 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between 2001 – 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2. | Being done progressively as major development sites progress. | | Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to support development in opportunity and intensification areas. | Generally positive trend although analysed using surrogate data. | | Increase in the number of jobs located in areas with high PTAL values | Slight losses in designated sites | | No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period. | Initial target missed, achieving the target needs more unified action across waste authorities to avoid missing future targets. | | Increase in household waste recycled or composted At least 25 per cent by 2005. At least 30 per cent by 2010. At least 33 per cent by 2015 | Achievement of facilities yet to be fully tested. | | Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment facilities | Dependent on KPI 20. | | 75% (16 million tonnes) of London’s waste treated or disposed of within London by 2010 | 9% reduction by 2003 gives a reasonably optimistic chance of meeting 23% target by 2016 | | Reduce emissions to 23 per cent below 1990 levels by 2016. | Lack of reliable data making assessment difficult. | | Production of 945GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2010 including at least six large wind turbines | No known development on floodplain although data is not supported by robust evidence | | No net loss of functional flood plain. | Marginal improvement this year but still above 2004 levels. | | Reduction in the proportion of buildings at risk as a percentage of the total number of listed buildings in London. | |

- Indicator showing positive trend

* Indicator showing negative trend = Indicator showing neutral trend (may be lacking data)

14. The London Plan was published in February 2004. Its policies are becoming better understood by all stakeholders and are increasingly reflected in the quality, nature and scale of new development across London. However, there is still some way to go before the strategic direction of development in London is in proper ‘general conformity’ with the plan’s policies. For example, changes to the planning system introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 were intended to ensure that the old Unitary Development Plans (some of which have been in place for more than 10 years) would be re-written within 3 years. However, some boroughs have had difficulty in meeting this deadline and are seeking to ‘save’ their old policies for a longer period. This will add uncertainty to the development process and compromise strategic policy to secure more sustainable use of land.

15. Nevertheless the tables contained within Appendix 1 of this report demonstrate that many of the key monitoring targets for the London Plan are being met. In particular the delivery of new housing has continued to rise to over 28 000 units in 2005/6.

16. The London Plan also has a vital role in co-ordinating and securing the necessary infrastructure to support London’s growth. This infrastructure covers transport, utilities, education, health and social facilities. The Mayor has sought to engage with the providers of these facilities to ensure that their plans complement the statutory, over-arching framework provided by the London Plan. While there is still work to be done in this area, especially in terms of social infrastructure, there is an increasing level of integration between strategic planning and infrastructure delivery.

17. Work has continued apace in planning for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. This has been incorporated in the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan and has led to more specific proposals by the Olympics Delivery Authority, the London Development Agency and other relevant bodies. A key part of planning for the Olympics is to put in place ‘Legacy Plans’ to ensure lasting benefits and sustainable regeneration not just for the Olympic site and its environs, but for London and the country as a whole. This work has led to the submission of 3 Planning Applications in February 2007.

18. 2006 has seen considerable activity in keeping the London Plan up to date. The Early Alterations, which focused on housing targets, minerals and waste policies were published in December 2006 following an Examination in Public in June 2006. The Further Alterations to the London Plan were subject to consultation firstly with the London Assembly and Functional Bodies in summer 2006, and then public consultation in autumn 2006. A wide-ranging programme of consultation events was organised and over 330 written responses were received. An Examination in Public will be held in June 2007. The key theme for the Further Alterations is addressing both the causes of and impacts of climate change. It is intended that the Further Alterations will be published in early 2008.

19. There has been further progress on some of the key transport projects which underpin London’s sustainable growth. The Crossrail Bill is progressing through Parliament and the East London Line and two DLR extensions are under construction. The western extension of the Congestion Charging Zone was implemented in February 2007 and the result of the Thames Gateway Bridge inquiry is expected in spring 2007.

20. Work has also continued on the Government’s Sustainable Communities programmes in both the Thames Gateway and the London Stansted Cambridge Peterborough corridor. A notable development has been the granting of planning permission for the 10,000 unit Barking Riverside site.

21. In terms of housing provision, a new target of 30,500 will apply from April 2007 following the publication of the Early Alterations to the London Plan. 28,300 dwellings were competed in 2005/6 of which 7,600 were new affordable homes. Private sector house prices have continued to grow above the general rate of inflation underscoring the continued importance of affordable housing provision in meeting London’s needs. Further integration of housing and planning activity will be supported by the Mayor’s new housing powers and his new Housing Strategy in 2007.

22. The five Regional Development Frameworks that were proposed in Chapter 5 of the 2004 plan were published in May 2006.

Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives

Objective 1 To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces.

23. The London Plan is clear that development should make the most efficient use of land, be focused on already used land and should not encroach upon parks, Green Belt, designated open spaces and other environmental assets such as rivers and canals.

24. The London Development Database figures indicate that of the housing development permitted in 2005/6, the vast majority, 96% of all units, were permitted on previously developed land. This figure puts London far ahead of all other UK regions and well above the national 60% target (see Tables 8 & 9 in Appendix 1 for more detailed breakdown). Furthermore it is expected that this is slightly under the actual figure as several brownfield sites appear to have been counted as Greenfield in the LDD system, this is currently under investigation.

25. As reported in previous Annual Monitoring Reports, more effective use is being made of scarce housing land. Coupled with greater emphasis on good design and environmental quality, densities across London have been increasing in recent years. 2005/6 saw a slight increase in densities from an average of 125 units/hectare in 2004/5 to 131 units/hectare. However there is concern that some boroughs, notably Bromley are still not using their development capacity as efficiently as others.

26. There have been some losses of open spaces through redevelopment. In many cases these losses have been compensated by more accessible or higher quality spaces but this aspect of planning of new developments needs to be kept under review. Objective 2 To make London a better city for people to live in.

27. The provision of an adequate supply of new homes, particularly affordable homes, is a central plank of the London Plan. The Housing Capacity Study 2004 was a key input to the Early Alterations of the London Plan and provided an authoritative basis for increasing the annual target from 23,000 to 30,500 from April 2007. It is recognised that this target is a challenging one and while output is rising, current delivery of 28,300 homes is still short of this figure. However, there is a generous pipeline of planning approvals to support further growth, with over 51,000 more units granted permission in 2005/6.

28. This monitoring is suggesting that the London Plan policy is working in increasing housing provision. It will need to remain the focus of attention in order to continue this level of provision and seek to exceed the 30,500 target. Despite significant improvements in housing output, further action is needed to meet London’s housing needs. The Mayor will continue to engage very actively with all relevant stakeholders to seek at least 30,500 extra homes in future years.

29. Of the 28,300 new homes 7,600 were affordable. This is similar to last years total. The effective operation of planning policy, together with the public subsidy available through the Housing Corporation has maintained this level of affordable housing provision. London Plan policies are progressing delivery in the right direction but a continued focus on affordable housing is required to move closer to the Mayor’s target of 50% of overall provision.

30. This AMR has been used to update and inform use of the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing. Further guidance on targeting intermediate housing provision will be given in the Mayor’s Housing Strategy to be published in June 2007. The updating of the affordability thresholds for social and intermediate housing is given in Appendix 6.

Objective 3 To make London a more prosperous city.

31. In 2004 (the latest year for which sub-regional employment data consistent with that used for the London Plan is available) employment fell in London and in all of London’s sub-regions with the exception of east London where employment grew very slightly. More recent data from the Office for National Statistics suggest that in London as a whole, in the 5 years to 2006, employment in grew by just 12,000 per annum on average. This compares to the projected trend in the London Plan of 42,000 for the period 2001-16. The latest GLA Economics projections suggest an annual average increase of 39,000 for this period. The relatively slow growth in employment so far to 2006 is at least in part due to the economic slowdown that London’s economy experienced between 2001-2003.

32. GLA Economics’ latest long-term employment projections suggest employment in London will grow by just over 1 million between 2004 and 2026. Business services are projected to account for the largest share of this growth, accounting for around 630,000 or nearly two thirds of the total change in employment to 2026. Other sectors expected to show significant growth over this period are Other Services (for example, leisure activities), up by nearly 270,000 and Hotels and Restaurants, up by around 230,000. Manufacturing is expected to continue its long run downward trend – falling to around 110,000 by 2026.

33. The London Development Agency works to promote London’s economy in line with the London Plan. The Economic Development Strategy was reviewed in 2005 to take account of the London Plan. Throughout 2006 there has been a gradual handing over of the LDA’s lead role in the Olympics to the newly formed Olympic Delivery Authority. 2006 has also seen the first full year of operation of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation with significant powers to bring about regeneration in East London.

**Objective 4 To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and Discrimination**

34. An important aspect of the London Plan is its broad focus on issues wider than land use. The Key Performance Indicators under this objective aim to ensure that the gap between disadvantaged groups and the rest of London is narrowed. This is a challenging aim but one that is essential to ensure a sustainable future for a diverse city. It is encouraging that the “floor targets” measured by government for the most deprived boroughs show improvement in many areas. It is notable that the levels of employment have not gone up in several boroughs and whilst there is a limit to the direct influence that the London Plan can have on this, the Mayor is seeking further powers in relation to the Learning and Skills Councils within London.

35. Work has continued to strengthen the links between strategic planning and the key social infrastructure providers; the Strategic Health Authorities and the Department for Education and Skills (DFES). These aspects of implementing the London Plan will be progressed through the Sub Regional Development Frameworks.

36. The establishment of a Children and Young People’s Unit at the GLA has provided a strategic resource to identify the needs of children and young people within London. These will be taken into account in Further Alterations to the London Plan and associated Supplementary Planning Guidance. Over the course of the next few years implementation of the London Plan polices will help to ensure London grows as a child friendly city. Moves to engage children have also been undertaken with a specific children’s consultation in relation to climate change.

37. The Mayor and the LDA have started work on the delivery of affordable childcare in London. The Mayor has also produced a draft Play Strategy, this highlights the role access to play space can have on the mental, physical and emotional development of children and young people.

38. The Mayor has produced the Accessible London Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to better meet the needs of people with disabilities. The successful implementation of the SPG will ensure that new developments are fully accessible and inclusive. An illustrated ‘journey’ through an accessible environment based on case study examples has been produced to accompany the SPG and is available on the website: [http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/spg-planning-for-diversity.jsp](http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/spg-planning-for-diversity.jsp)

39. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced a new section which requires the submission of a Design and Access Statement with a planning application. This has given additional legal weight to the London Plan policy on inclusive design (policy 4B.5) which asks planning applicants to submit access statements with their proposal showing how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development, and how inclusion will be maintained and managed. CABE (the government’s Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment) have produced guidance on design and access statements and on the principles of inclusive design reinforce this requirement. This is helping to ensure that proposals address the access needs of disabled people at an early stage in the design process. In 2006 the Mayor also published a case study document on Lifetime Homes supporting the Accessible London SPG, copies are available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/accessible_london.jsp

Objective 5 To improve London’s accessibility.

40. 2006 has seen a continued trend of increased use of public transport both in absolute terms and in relation to use of the private car. In particular there has been a continued fall in the number of vehicles on the London’s roads. Since 2001 there has been a drop of 4.2% in private vehicle use against an 11.6% increase in public transport across London. There has been steady progress on the major transport projects in London as set out below.

41. Crossrail – The Bill is currently going through the Select Committee stage and the project is awaiting a further funding announcement.

42. East London Line – Construction work has started on the first phase extending the line to Dalston Junction in the north – with new stations provided at Shoreditch High Street, Hoxton, Haggerston and Dalston Junction – and, via a short connection at New Cross Gate, south to Crystal Palace and West Croydon. This work is still on target for completion in 2010 with the further extension of services to Highbury and Islington expected to commenced in 2011. Phase two will extend the line west to Clapham Junction via a new spur from Surrey Quays to Queens Road Peckham.

43. DLR and extensions – Tunneling work to extend the recently completed City Airport branch under the Thames to Woolwich is well underway and is expected to open in 2009/10. Services on the North London Line south of Stratford ceased in 2006 to enable the conversion of the route to DLR operation between Stratford and Canning Town and the construction of an extension north to Stratford International station. A new station is being built at Langdon Park and much of the network is being upgraded to enable the running of 3 car trains. Further work to determine the route of the eastern extension to Dagenham Dock is underway with the indicative timetable of opening services in 2015/16.

44. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link project is on target for completion this year with International services expected to commence in November 2007. The domestic services using the route to access North Kent are expected to commence in 2009. Services are planned to be altered during the Olympic and Paralympic Games to provide extra capacity to Stratford, this will be known as the Javelin service.

45. Thameslink – Following the approval of the Transport and Works Act for this project, it is expected to be delivered in two phases once a funding package has been agreed. Thameslink will enable longer, more frequent trains to run via central London between Bedford, Peterborough and King’s Lynn in the north and Guildford, Horsham, Brighton, Eastbourne, Ashford and Dartford in the south.

46. **Thames Gateway Bridge** – The public inquiry into the planning application and scheme orders for the bridge closed in summer 2006 and the Inspector delivered his report to the Secretary of State in November 2006. A decision is expected during the first half of 2007. The proposed bridge would improve the highway and public transport accessibility of a number of key housing and employment regeneration and development areas, allowing local communities easier access to new employment and housing opportunities. If approved the bridge could be operational around 2013.

47. **Tram and light transit schemes** – During 2006 further consultation has been undertaken on the West London Tram, Cross River Tram and Greenwich Riverfront Transit schemes. TfL is currently tendering for the first phase of construction (Ilford – Barking – Dagenham Dock) for the East London Transit project.

48. **Western Extension to the Congestion Charge** - The extended congestion charging zone became operational on 19th February 2007. Following extensive public consultation, a number of significant changes were made to the original proposal, including extending the residents’ discount zone and reducing the charging hours to end at 6pm. The impact of the changes will be monitored by TfL over the coming years.

49. **Bus Services** – since 2001 there has been huge expansion in bus services across London, both in terms of number of routes and frequency and operating times of services. In particular night buses have seen considerable expansion and more than a doubling of patronage.

**Objective 6 To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city**

50. The London Plan contains policies to ensure that London’s development is sustainable. This is of fundamental importance to achieving the Mayor’s Vision. It includes promoting excellence in urban design, protection of biodiversity and open spaces, improving air quality, minimising noise and other pollution, promoting sustainable waste handling and minimising the use of resources. With the greater understanding of climate change the Mayor has proposed significant changes to some of these policies through the Further Alterations to the London Plan.

51. The Mayor’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG was published in May 2006 and contains guidance on implementation of broad policies crucial to tackling climate change.

52. The Mayor together with Richard Rogers, his Chief Advisor on Architecture and Urbanism, launched the 100 public spaces programme in July 2002. These will be delivered through a programme of partnership projects over the coming years. The first of the spaces to be completed, Gillette Square in Hackney, was opened in November 2006. 34 of the projects have now been identified and all 100 projects will be announced by 2012. Details of the Mayor’s 100 Public Spaces Programme are available at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/auu/publications.jsp#100ps](http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/auu/publications.jsp#100ps)

53. Water management continued to be a major issue for London in 2006. The drought focused attention on the need to reduce water demand and leakage as well as plan for new resources. To secure more sustainable use of water, the Mayor appeared at the Planning Inquiry into the proposed de-salination plant at Beckton; the outcome of the Inquiry is currently awaited. Combined sewer overflows into the Thames have also given rise to concern. Following detailed research up to 2005, the Government commissioned Thames Water to investigate two options for addressing the issue. This work was submitted to Government at the end of 2006 and a decision on the preferred option is expected in the early months of 2007. The Mayor will consult on his Water Strategy in the early part of 2007. The Strategy will examine a range of issues relating to the planning, management and funding for the future of London’s water infrastructure. The Government also published PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk in December 2006 and is expected to publish PPS26 (Development and Climate Change) in the near future, these will both influence the Further Alterations to the London Plan.

54. Following consultation on the proposed Low Emission Zone for London early in 2006, a further round of consultation was completed in February 2007. This included details of how the scheme would operate and its proposed coverage, extending over most of London except for the very outer fringes. The Mayor will examine the consultation responses to inform implementation of the Zone. The aim is to reduce air pollution from oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter by discouraging the use of the most polluting lorries, buses and coaches. Cars would not be included.

55. The Climate Change Agency was set up in 2005 and will be a key driving force in accelerating reductions in emissions in the capital. In 2006 the Agency and EDF Energy entered into a partnership to set up a joint venture company with a remit to develop sustainable energy schemes for London. The company will tackle climate change by developing local sustainable energy solutions to London’s power, heating and cooling needs. It will identify and develop sites across the capital where investment in sustainable energy technology would reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, which are contributing to global warming.

56. The Mayor is also preparing a Climate Change Adaption Strategy which will be a first for a world city. It will be published for public consultation in the summer of 2007 following consultation with the London Assembly and the Functional Bodies.

57. The London Energy Partnership, was established by the Mayor in 2004. It is a cross-sectoral body using a partnership approach to provide a ‘key delivery mechanism for the Mayor’s Energy Strategy’. See: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/energy/partnership-steering-group/index.jsp. During 2006 the Partnership completed a range of projects in London including the launch of 4 showcase Pilot Energy Action Areas, support for planners and developers on renewable energy, a study of the potential for renewable energy generation from wind and biomass and a report on London’s Low Carbon Future (November 2006). Progress on the Sub Regional Development Frameworks.

58. Chapter 5 of the London Plan introduced the concept of Sub Regional Development Frameworks (SRDFs) as non statutory implementation tools for the London Plan.

59. The 5 SRDFs were published in May 2006 following consultation in 2005. It is recognised that the most useful parts of the SRDFs are those elements dealing specifically with local implementation of strategic policy, including that for Opportunity Areas/Areas for Intensification. Many of these Areas are already undergoing significant change and there is a particular need to update guidance on their future in light of the Further Alterations to the London Plan.

60. An important part of the Further Alterations to the London Plan is the proposal to refine the sub regional boundaries to reflect London’s radial structure and provide a sounder basis for coordinating delivery of strategic policy and investment. The proposed sub regions are:

| Sub Region | Boroughs | |------------|----------| | North | Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Westminster | | North East | Barking & Dagenham, City, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest | | South East | Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark | | South West | Croydon, Kingston, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond, Sutton, Wandsworth | | West | Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kensington & Chelsea |

Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and other Mayoral Strategies.

61. Following the publication of the London Plan, the Mayor has been producing a series of Supplementary Planning Guidance (Table 3) and Best Practice Guidance (Table 4) notes to inform implementation of strategic policy. The Mayor has also produced a number of other Strategies which cover important themes for London’s future, see Table 5 below. As the London Plan Further Alterations move toward publication it can be expected that more of the other Mayoral Strategies will be reviewed to take account of relevant spatial changes.

62. Though slower than originally anticipated, progress has been made over the past year in completing the SPG and BPG. An updated position is given below.

| Supplementary Planning Guidance Title | Consultation draft | Final Document | |--------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment | July 03 | April 04 | | Industrial Capacity | Sep 03 | 2007 | | Housing Provision (inc Affordable Housing) | Dec 04 | Nov 05 | | Sustainable Design and Construction | March 05 | May 06 | | View Management Framework | April 05 | Spring 07 | |---------------------------|----------|-----------| | Land for Transport Functions | May 06 | 2007 | | Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation | Oct 06 | 2007 | | East London Green Grid Framework | Nov 06 | 2007 | | Planning for Equality and Diversity in London | Dec 06 | 2007 | | Renewable Energy | Spring 07 | 2007 | | Town Centres, Retail and Leisure | Summer 07 | 2007 |

**Note** specific months indicate definite publication dates, generic dates indicate anticipated publication dates.

### Table 4 List of London Plan Best Practice Guidance

| Best Practice Guidance Title | Consultation draft | Final Document | |-----------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Guide to preparing Open Space Strategies | June 03 | March 04 | | Development Plan Policies for biodiversity | Oct 04 | Nov 05 | | Tomorrow’s Suburbs | Feb 05 | June 06 | | Managing the night time economy | June 06 | Early 07 | | Improving Health Through Planning | June 06 | Early 07 | | Travel Plans | To be published as a TfL Technical Note | | Urban Design Principles and Public Realm Strategy | To be published as a Design for London publication | | Regional Sports Facilities | 2007 | 2007 |

**Note** specific months indicate definite publication dates, generic dates indicate anticipated publication dates.

### Table 5 List of Mayoral Strategies

| Mayoral Strategies Title | Final Document | |--------------------------|----------------| | Rough Sleepers – From Street to Stability | March 01 | | Transport – Mayor’s Transport Strategy | July 01 | | Transport Strategy Revision | 2008 | | Economic – Success Through Diversity | July 01 | | 1st Review - Sustaining Success | Jan 05 | | Domestic Violence – 1 in 4 | Nov 01 | | Alcohol/Drugs – Alcohol and Drugs in London | Jan 02 | | Biodiversity – Connecting with London’s Nature | July 02 | | Air Quality – Cleaning London’s Air | Sept 02 | | Municipal Waste – Rethinking Rubbish in London | Aug 03 | | Review of Municipal Waste Strategy – (draft) | Spring 07 | | Childcare – Towards Affordable Good Quality Childcare For All | Nov 03 | | Children and Young People – Making London Better for all Children and Young People | Jan 04 | | Spatial Development – The London Plan | Feb 04 | | Energy – Green Light to Clean Power | Feb 04 | | Ambient Noise – Sounder City | March 04 | | Culture – London Cultural Capital | April 04 | | Food Strategy Healthy and Sustainable Food for London | May 06 | | London Tourism Vision | May 06 | Progress on Major Developments

63. Appendix 4 contains a summary of progress on implementing policy for the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification identified in the London Plan. In some cases development has progressed, with existing planning permissions being implemented. In many cases existing masterplans or frameworks are being re-visited in the light of the London Plan policies and sites are being examined to determine if they can be used more effectively. In a minority of cases, area development frameworks are yet to begin in earnest.

64. During 2006 one of the main focuses of planning work has been the Olympic and Paralympic Games, see the Olympic Delivery Authority for more details: http://www.london2012.com/en/. In February 2007 three planning applications were submitted to the ODA covering:

- Site Preparation
- Olympic Facilities and their Legacy transformation
- Olympic Village (part) and Legacy residential use of Clays Lane Estate It is intended to determine these application in July 2007.

65. Amongst other major schemes Barking Riverside in Thames Gateway received outline planning permission for the 180-hectare site. Proposals include up to 10,800 residential dwellings, together with retail, offices, hotel, community, health and education facilities, open space, landscaping parking, transport infrastructure and remediation work.

66. The London Stansted Cambridge Peterborough growth corridor includes 5 London boroughs (Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Redbridge, Waltham Forest) as well as extensive parts of Hertfordshire, Essex and Cambridgeshire. The LDA is progressing a Development and Investment Framework to assist with the delivery of redevelopment within London part of the corridor.

Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity

67. Under the terms of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, the Mayor must be consulted on “strategic” planning applications (“Strategic” is defined in the Order). The Mayor can comment on the merits or otherwise of particular applications and has the power to direct a borough to refuse planning permission. The Mayor does not have the power to direct a borough to grant planning permission. The Mayor is consulted at the same time the application is submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and will issue his initial views (Stage 1). If the LPA are minded to grant planning permission, it must give the Mayor 14 days to decided whether or not to direct refusal of that application; this is know as his final decision (Stage 2).

68. Table 6 below shows that the number of strategic planning referrals has remained roughly consistent over the past 4 years at just over 250, bringing the total number of referred cases since the creation of the GLA to 1530. In many cases several decisions may be made in relation to one particular site. The reasons for this include re-submission of a planning application, duplicate planning applications, applications covering more than one borough or applications that return to the Mayor for his final decision. Since July 3, 2000 the Mayor has issued his final decision on 493 planning applications, of which, 38 were a direction to refuse. Subsequently, 20 directions have been withdrawn after successful negotiations to satisfy his concerns. The Mayor has met the 14-day deadline 100% of the time.

Table 6 Mayor’s Planning Decisions including both initial representation and final decision

| Borough | 2000 - 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | Total | |--------------------------|-------------|------|------|------|------|-------| | City | 25 | 18 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 88 | | Barking & Dagenham | 15 | 13 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 40 | | Barnet | 4 | 2 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 20 | | Bexley | 9 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 27 | | Brent | 13 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 34 | | Bromley | 28 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 60 | | Camden | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 21 | | Croydon | 23 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 55 | | Ealing | 32 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 53 | | Enfield | 9 | 5 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 35 | | Greenwich | 20 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 12 | 64 | | Hackney | 22 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 48 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 11 | 11 | 13 | 4 | 7 | 46 | | Haringey | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 16 | | Harrow | 5 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 16 | | Havering | 11 | 14 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 45 | | Hillingdon | 24 | 22 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 84 | | Hounslow | 18 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 42 | | Islington | 3 | 2 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 26 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 12 | | Kingston upon Thames | 7 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 19 | | Lambeth | 19 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 13 | 57 | | Lewisham | 8 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 4 | 30 | | Merton | 16 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 35 | | Newham | 14 | 14 | 19 | 27 | 19 | 93 | | Redbridge | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 14 | | Richmond upon Thames | 10 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 27 | | Southwark | 47 | 6 | 18 | 11 | 21 | 103 | | Sutton | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 14 | | Tower Hamlets | 37 | 24 | 31 | 37 | 36 | 165 | | Waltham Forest | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 19 | | Wandsworth | 9 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 48 | | Westminster | 14 | 15 | 16 | 14 | 15 | 74 | | **Totals** | **476** | **255** | **273** | **265** | **261** | **1530** |

Note: shading is only to ease reading across the table

Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, all local authorities are now required to produce a Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF is a portfolio of Local Development Documents (LDDs) comprised of Development Plan Documents (DPDs) Action Area Plans (AAPs) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). DPDs are subject to three stages of statutory consultation. and an independent examination into the ‘soundness’ of the plan. SPDs are subject to one statutory round of consultation and no examination.

65 Every London borough produced an original Local Development Scheme by April 2005. This set out the range of local development documents that would make up the boroughs Local Development Framework and a timescale for producing these. Eighteen boroughs have revised their LDS during 2006 to take account of slippage in the programme for producing local development documents. Although it is not currently a statutory requirement for boroughs to consult the Mayor on draft revisions to the local development scheme most boroughs (13) have done so, which is welcomed. The Mayor made responses as necessary on five occasions.

66 All London borough Local Development Documents are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Boroughs are required to consult the Mayor at each statutory stage in the process of preparation of LDDs. They are also required to formally request the Mayor’s opinion on general conformity at the same time as the document is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.

67 Boroughs are also required to consult the Mayor on supplementary planning documents to the extent that the council thinks he is affected by the document. The Mayor has indicated to boroughs the types of documents he wishes to be consulted on (affordable housing, transport, planning obligations, sustainable development, environmental protection and climate change, waste and planning briefs for sites which could result in referable applications).

68 Those boroughs still progressing unitary development plans (UDPs) to adoption are required to consult the Mayor at each statutory stage and there is a statutory requirement for UDPs to be in general conformity with the London Plan before they are adopted.

69 Appendix 7 gives details of the all the development plan consultations that the Mayor has responded to in 2006. In order to achieve general conformity of UDPs and local development documents the Mayor has worked proactively with the boroughs. During 2006 GLA officers had 26 meetings with boroughs to discuss general conformity matters.

70 Table 7 shows that at the start of 2007 ten boroughs (Barnet, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Greenwich, Lambeth, Southwark, Waltham Forest and Westminster) were still working towards adoption of a replacement UDP. The Mayor responded to six consultations on Modifications and six consultations on further modifications (three of which were Modifications proposed to address Directions requested by the Mayor and issued by the Secretary of State). The Mayor also considered two Inspector’s Reports and provided comments to the relevant borough. Table 7 – Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents

| LDF Stage | No. of boroughs | Boroughs | |-----------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------| | Recently adopted UDP (in 2006) or progressing the latter stages of UDP adoption. | 10 | Barnet, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Greenwich, Haringey, Lambeth, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Westminster | | Core Strategy Issues and Options Stage | 13 | Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Corporation of London, Ealing, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Kensington & Chelsea, Lewisham, Merton, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton, Wandsworth | | Core Strategy Preferred Options Stage | 5 | Brent, Hillingdon, Islington, Newham, Redbridge | | Core Strategy Submitted to Sec of State | 2 | Havering, Tower Hamlets | | Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published | 3 | Enfield, Hounslow\*, Kingston upon Thames\* |

Note: table based on data for Core Strategies Dec 2006

- Have progressed other development plan documents.

London Development Database

69. The London Development Database is the key data source for monitoring planning permissions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 local planning authorities and the GLA provides a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The database monitors each planning permission through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce various specific reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis.

70. The Annual Monitoring Report will continue to focus on the key data sets that are needed to monitor the overall performance of the London Plan. In addition specific reports can be generated relating to particular projects, research or issues that arise. Boroughs are also able to adapt parts of the system for borough specific monitoring requirements as well as providing a consistent monitoring approach across all 33 London boroughs.

**London Planning Awards 2006**

71. The Mayor, London First and the Royal Town Planning Institute run the annual London Planning Awards scheme to showcase good planning practice in London. This is aimed at both the projects and the people behind the projects. 2006 was the fourth year that the Awards have been run and again this year they have demonstrated a high level of achievement and some exemplary projects across London and particularly in inner and east London. The list of the winners is given in Appendix 3. Entry forms for the 2007 London Planning Awards will be available from June 2007 with a deadline for submissions of around the middle of August, the ceremony will be moved to January 2008.

**Update on inter regional issues.**

72. The advisory forum on regional planning for London, the South East and the East of England (The Inter-Regional Forum) meets three times a year to consider significant cross regional issues. From January 2007 Nicky Gavron Assembly Member and Deputy Mayor, will be chairing the Inter Regional Forum until December 2008, on the Mayor’s behalf. It is intended to promote further joint action in relation to regional planning initiatives to address climate change issues.

73. The London Plan underscores the importance of London’s links to other parts of the UK and particularly to the two adjoining regions of East of England and South East England. This year has seen the Examination in Public of the South East of England Regional Spatial Strategy. The Mayor has made various representations to the EiP Panel either in writing or through the appearance of his officers.

**London Plan Early Alterations**

74. The London Plan Early Alterations cover policy areas identified through the Examination in Public process into the original London Plan where it was recognised that there would be a need for an early update. They were published in December 2006. This followed consultation in 2005 and an Examination in Public in the summer of 2006. The Alterations are limited to housing, waste and minerals policy areas. For housing the Alterations introduce new housing capacity figures for each of the boroughs, based on the 2004 London Housing Capacity study. From April 2007 these will be used for monitoring the delivery of housing for Key Performance Indicator 4 (see appendix 1). In terms of waste, the Alterations introduce new recycling targets which will be incorporated into Key Performance Indicator 19 (See Appendix 1). Borough level waste apportionment targets have been produced subsequently for a further period of consultation (up to 2nd March). In time these will feature in Key Performance Indicator 21. For Minerals policy the Early Alterations update the London Plan to take account of MPG6. London Plan Further Alterations

75. During 2005 and 2006 the Mayor has conducted a focused review of other aspects of the London Plan and determined that some areas need Alteration. These were initially identified through the publication of the Statement of Intent in December 2005. This was then continued in 2006 with draft proposals for Further Alterations being published for consultation with the Assembly and Functional Bodies in summer 2006 and wider public consultation in autumn 2006.

76. Public consultation closed in December 2006 with over 330 responses being received. The proposed Further Alterations cover the following broad areas:

- Climate Change
- London as a World City
- The London Economy
- Housing
- Tackling Social Exclusion
- Transport
- London’s Geography (including the sub regions and inter regional issues)
- London’s Suburbs
- Livability (including safety, security and open spaces)
- The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

77. An Examination in Public into the proposed Further Alterations is set for June 2007 and is expected to run for approximately six weeks. The programme leading to publication is set out below and more details are available from the EiP website www.london.gov.uk/london-plan-eip

June 2007 Examination in Public. This is an independent inquiry by a Panel focusing on what it considers to be the most significant ‘Matters’.

Autumn 2007 Panel’s Report. This is a report to the Mayor on the Panel’s consideration of, and recommendations on, the Alterations.

Early 2008 Publication of the Altered London Plan.

Review of Mayoral Powers

78. Following consultation in 2005 the Government published the GLA Bill in November 2006. It recognises that London is unique and that the creation of London Governance has resulted in many major successes. The Bill would create new lead roles for the Mayor on housing and tackling climate change, a strengthened role in planning and waste and enhanced powers in relation to health and culture.

79. In relation to the planning the Government published detailed proposals in the Mayor of London Order in January 2007 see the following link, www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Planning/?a=42496 Looking to the Future

80. London Plan continues to provide the clear, authoritative strategic policy directions necessary to coordinate the spatial development of London. It has been a major material consideration in many high profile planning decisions, as well as informing those on more local proposals, which cumulatively are of strategic importance. It is coordinating the new suite of borough Development Plan Documents to address strategic objectives as well as more local concerns. It also provides the framework for long term development and investment in London’s infrastructure.

81. It is clear however, that London’s dynamism means that many issues and projects change very rapidly. It is therefore vital to keep the London Plan up to date to reflect and anticipate some of the changes that are happening or likely to happen. This process has already begun with the publication of the Early Alterations to the London Plan and will continue with the Further Alterations. The emerging series of AMRs have informed this plan review process and will contribute to new research and on going work to ensure that development in London remains sustainable and in general conformity with the London Plan.

82. Annual Monitoring Report 4 is scheduled for February 2008. This will be close to the publication of the London Plan Further Alterations. It may therefore include revised Key Performance Indicators. Annual Monitoring Report Appendix 1 – Key Performance Indicators

The London Plan set out 25 Key Performance Indicators. These are intended to enable monitoring of the overall thrust of the London Plan’s suite of policies rather than to identify the impact of single policies. The Key Performance Indicators are reported below under the most relevant of the London Plan’s six objectives. This AMR has a slightly revised format to the two previous AMRs to reflect Government guidance; Regional Spatial Strategy Monitoring – A Good Practice Guide Dec 2005 and the Revised Core Output Indicators March 2005, both published by DCLG.

Objective 1 to accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces

Key Performance Indicator 1 Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land.

Target A minimum five per cent improvement over each five-year period.

Table 8 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London

| Year | % of development on previously developed land within London | |------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 2000 | 89% ODPM | | 2001 | 90% ODPM | | 2002 | 90% ODPM | | 2003 | 94% ODPM | | 2004 | 96% LDD | | 2005 | 95.8% LDD |

Sources: ODPM - all completed development LDD - residential planning permissions granted during financial years

Performance against this target is very close to that recorded last year (a 0.2% drop). AMR2 recommended altering this target and this has been proposed in the Further Alterations to the London Plan.

Table 9 below gives more detailed analysis and shows that 12 boroughs are achieving 100% and a further 4 boroughs over 99% of permitted residential units on previously developed land. This is a reduction on figures for 2004/5 where 23 boroughs achieved over 99%. Furthermore there are 8 boroughs which achieve less than 95% of which 4 are below 90%. Given the importance of maintaining greenfield land for London the reasons for this should be investigated. Contrary to previous years this below trend performance cannot be attributed to a small number of ‘one off’ developments.

More detailed analysis of some Greenfield development sites has shown that some are mis-coded brownfield sites that have been left undeveloped for some years. This will be investigated on a more comprehensive basis and any adjustment reported in AMR4. Table 9 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London (by borough)

| Borough | ODPM figs % Development on previously developed land 1995–1998 | ODPM figs % Development on previously developed land 2001–2004 | LDD figs % Development on previously developed land 2004/5 | LDD figs % Development on previously developed land 2005/6 | |--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | City | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Barking & Dagenham | 78 | 80 | 52 | 86.2 | | Barnet | 83 | 91 | 99.6 | 97.6 | | Bexley | 59 | 82 | 79.9 | 91.8 | | Brent | 98 | 84 | 91.2 | 91.0 | | Bromley | 90 | 91 | 96.7 | 97.8 | | Camden | 98 | 92 | 100 | 100.0 | | Croydon | 82 | 98 | 98.2 | 100.0 | | Ealing | 86 | 81 | 100 | 93.0 | | Enfield | 87 | 89 | 100 | 99.7 | | Greenwich | 77 | 92 | 99.4 | 95.2 | | Hackney | 95 | 99 | 100 | 96.9 | | Ham & Fulham | 88 | 99 | 100 | 100.0 | | Haringey | 94 | 100 | 99.1 | 100.0 | | Harrow | 100 | 83 | 100 | 100.0 | | Havering | 84 | 94 | 95.1 | 98.3 | | Hillingdon | 75 | 90 | 100 | 80.8 | | Hounslow | 62 | 90 | 99.7 | 80.0 | | Islington | 94 | 99 | 100 | 97.5 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 99 | 96 | 100 | 100.0 | | Kingston u Thames | 92 | 93 | 96.0 | 100.0 | | Lambeth | 83 | 91 | 100 | 99.6 | | Lewisham | 92 | 98 | 100 | 97.6 | | Merton | 75 | 100 | 99.2 | 100.0 | | Newham | 82 | 75 | 99.9 | 98.3 | | Redbridge | 94 | 96 | 79.6 | 86.5 | | Richmond u Thames | 90 | 97 | 80.9 | 95.7 | | Southwark | 96 | 96 | 100 | 99.1 | | Sutton | 88 | 98 | 99.8 | 99.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 88 | 97 | 92.8 | 91.9 | | Waltham Forest | 86 | 89 | 100 | 100.0 | | Wandsworth | 99 | 100 | 100 | 100.0 | | City of Westminster | 98 | 100 | 100 | 100.0 | | **London** | **87** | **93** | **96.0** | **95.8** |

**Sources:**

- ODPM - annual average of all development on previously developed land
- LDD - residential planning permissions granted on previously developed land during financial years. Key Performance Indicator 2 Increasing the density of residential development

Target Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix

Table 10 Density of Residential development by borough (units per hectare of new development)

| Borough | Average density 1999-2002 | Average density 2001-2004 | Average density planning permissions | |-------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------| | | | | 2004-5 | 2005-6 | | City | 245 | 960 | 586 | 363 | | Barking & Dagenham | 43 | 70 | 82 | 123 | | Barnet | 43 | 54 | 70 | 113 | | Bexley | 30 | 32 | 75 | 55 | | Brent | 47 | 71 | 107 | 163 | | Bromley | 28 | 31 | 69 | 33 | | Camden | 92 | 77 | 169 | 155 | | Croydon | 41 | 47 | 85 | 82 | | Ealing | 68 | 63 | 100 | 177 | | Enfield | 41 | 48 | 85 | 86 | | Greenwich | 43 | 48 | 120 | 102 | | Hackney | 88 | 103 | 200 | 255 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 68 | 71 | 175 | 196 | | Haringey | 72 | 84 | 139 | 116 | | Harrow | 30 | 53 | 93 | 73 | | Havering | 39 | 46 | 73 | 95 | | Hillingdon | 37 | 46 | 60 | 48 | | Hounslow | 53 | 69 | 82 | 105 | | Islington | 99 | 93 | 194 | 380 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 93 | 120 | 138 | 203 | | Kingston u Thames | 39 | 54 | 88 | 98 | | Lambeth | 82 | 102 | 152 | 183 | | Lewisham | 55 | 81 | 127 | 168 | | Merton | 51 | 65 | 100 | 111 | | Newham | 64 | 97 | 173 | 261 | | Redbridge | 30 | 60 | 129 | 135 | | Richmond u Thames | 48 | 58 | 99 | 93 | | Southwark | 88 | 102 | 225 | 248 | | Sutton | 43 | 49 | 83 | 60 | | Tower Hamlets | 113 | 138 | 299 | 483 | | Waltham Forest | 38 | 44 | 129 | 127 | | Wandsworth | 65 | 93 | 128 | 138 | | City of Westminster | 116 | 144 | 202 | 263 | | **LONDON** | **59** | **64** | **125**| **131**|

Sources: cols 2-3 ODPM\
cols 5-6 LDD – annual residential approvals

Note: 2004/5 and 2005/6 figures based on individual years and subject to greater variation.

Even allowing for differences in the sources of the data, improvements in the efficiency of residential land use have accelerated since 2000. However, this masks considerable local variation and there is concern over the reduction in densities of schemes permitted in the lowest performing boroughs. One of these is now only slightly above the national minimum guideline. The reasons for low performance relative to broadly comparable boroughs should be explored.

In terms of the Key Performance Indicator 2 the London Plan is having the intended effect in encouraging more efficient use of land. Analysis of 2005/6 planning permissions for developments of over 15 units indicates that 7% of units are below the London Plan’s Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) range, 28% are within the range and 65% are above the range. It is proposed to refine the SRQ matrix to take better account of the implications of this distribution for dwelling size mix, especially provision of family housing.

### Table 11

| Density of developments schemes in relation to SRQ range | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | |---------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | Financial Year | | | | Within Range | 31% | 28% | | Above range | 62% | 65% | | Below Range | 8% | 7% |

**Source:** LDD

Figures don’t total 100% due to rounding

### Key Performance Indicator 3

**Protection of open space**

**Target**

No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development.

The figures shown in Table 12 below indicate that London has lost almost 4ha of open space last year through development. This ties in with the figures in Table 9 which, relative to AMR 2, show more boroughs with lower brownfield development figures.

Hillingdon and Redbridge have experienced the highest losses although these boroughs are amongst those where losses have a lower impact. The loss of 0.7ha in Tower Hamlets is arguably of more concern because of constrained access to open space in many parts of that borough. Table 12 Changes in designated open space due to new development or change of use 2005/06 (hectares)

| Borough Name | Area of existing designated open space\* | Area of proposed open space\*\* | Net loss or gain | |-----------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0 | 3.733 | 3.733 | | Barnet | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Brent | 0.978 | 0.54 | -0.438 | | Bromley | 0.655 | 0 | -0.655 | | Camden | 0 | 0.995 | 0.995 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 0 | 2.353 | 2.353 | | Ealing | 0.434 | 0.92 | 0.486 | | Enfield | 0.169 | 3.82 | 3.651 | | Greenwich | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hackney | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.12 | | Hammersmith and Fulham| 0 | 0.018 | 0.018 | | Haringey | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0 | | Harrow | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 0.33 | 0 | -0.33 | | Hillingdon | 11.67 | 16.24 | 4.57 | | Hounslow | 3.616 | 5.94 | 2.324 | | Islington | 0.121 | 0.076 | -0.045 | | Kensington and Chelsea| 0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 0.03 | 0.03 | | Lambeth | 0 | 0.203 | 0.203 | | Lewisham | 0.238 | 1.3 | 1.062 | | Merton | 0 | 0.014 | 0.014 | | Newham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Redbridge | 4.563 | 3.006 | -1.557 | | Richmond upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Southwark | 0 | 0.109 | 0.109 | | Sutton | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Tower Hamlets | 1.468 | 0.722 | -0.746 | | Waltham Forest | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Wandsworth | 0 | 0.033 | 0.033 | | Westminster | 0 | 0.17 | 0.17 | | **London** | **24.852** | **41.652** | **16.8** |

Source: LDD – all planning relevant permissions

**Correction to AMR2.** AMR2 for 2004/5 showed a gain of +24.444ha of designated open space across London. On going revisions to the data now indicate that the actual figure was approximately 12ha.

- This column only records losses of designated open space. In addition approximately 20 hectares of non-designated open space has been built upon- this figure includes sites designated for development and temporary open spaces.

\*\* It is not currently know how much of the additional open space is/will be designated as protected open space. Objective 2 to make London a better city for people to live in

Key Performance Indicator 4 An increased supply of new homes

Target Completion of at least 23,000 new homes a year between 2004–2016. Target to be reviewed by 2006.

With the publication of the Early Alterations to the London Plan in December 2006, this target will be increased to the completion of at least 30,500 new homes a year between 2007–2016.

Table 13 Number of housing completions by borough 2005/6

| Sub-Region | Conventional Supply | non-self contained | Vacancies returning to use * | Totals | TARGET | % of Target | |------------|---------------------|--------------------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|-------------| | Central | | | | | | | | Camden | 624 | -16 | 767 | 1375 | 850 | 162% | | Islington | 736 | 0 | 103 | 839 | 900 | 93% | | K & C | 211 | -13 | 35 | 233 | 540 | 43% | | Lambeth | 1069 | 6 | 187 | 1262 | 1450 | 87% | | Southwark | 1165 | 0 | 16 | 1181 | 1480 | 80% | | Wands | 1315 | 333 | -148 | 1500 | 820 | 183% | | Westminster| 1260 | -25 | -15 | 1220 | 970 | 126% | | Sub-Total | 6380 | 285 | 945 | 7610 | 7010 | 109% | | East | | | | | | | | B & D | 495 | 0 | -278 | 217 | 510 | 43% | | Bexley | 96 | 0 | 0 | 96 | 280 | 34% | | City | 48 | 0 | 14 | 62 | 110 | 56% | | Greenwich | 1774 | 0 | 0 | 1774 | 800 | 222% | | Hackney | 805 | 12 | 908 | 1725 | 720 | 240% | | Havering | 310 | 0 | 268 | 578 | 350 | 165% | | Lewisham | 916 | 0 | 200 | 1116 | 870 | 128% | | Newham | 919 | 0 | -198 | 721 | 890 | 81% | | Redbridge | 636 | 0 | -534 | 102 | 540 | 19% | | T Hamlets | 2575 | 259 | -100 | 2734 | 2070 | 132% | | Sub-Total | 8574 | 271 | 280 | 9125 | 7140 | 128% | | West | | | | | | | | Brent | 1039 | 49 | 309 | 1397 | 680 | 205% | | Ealing | 602 | -68 | -94 | 440 | 650 | 68% | | H & F | 316 | -33 | 112 | 395 | 400 | 99% | | Harrow | 447 | 0 | 293 | 740 | 330 | 224% | | Hillingdon | 499 | 105 | 370 | 974 | 440 | 221% | | Hounslow | 481 | 0 | 424 | 905 | 470 | 193% | | Sub-Total | 3384 | 53 | 1414 | 4851 | 2970 | 163% | | North | | | | | | | | Barnet | 768 | 0 | 0 | 768 | 890 | 86% | | Enfield | 169 | 13 | -328 | -146 | 660 | -22% | | Haringey | 530 | -321 | 193 | 402 | 970 | 41% | | W Forest | 492 | 0 | 166 | 658 | 460 | 143% | | Sub-Total | 1959 | -308 | 31 | 1682 | 2980 | 56% | | South | | | | | | | | Bromley | 617 | -6 | 427 | 1038 | 570 | 182% | | Croydon | 669 | 23 | 820 | 1512 | 850 | 178% | | Kingston | 333 | -20 | 148 | 461 | 340 | 136% | | Merton | 698 | 0 | -121 | 577 | 430 | 134% | | Richmond | 893 | 168 | -65 | 996 | 270 | 369% | | Sutton | 502 | 0 | -45 | 457 | 370 | 124% | | Sub-Total | 3712 | 165 | 1164 | 5041 | 2830 | 178% | | LONDON TOTAL | 24009 | 466 | 3834 | 28309 | 22930 | 123% | In 2005/6, 28,309 net additional homes were provided - 123% of the 23,000 original London Plan target and a promising 93% of the revised London Plan target of 30,500 which will apply from April 2007. Performance was best in South and West sub-regions at 178% and 163% respectively. North was the only sub region to perform under its target with low output from Haringey and a net loss of units in Enfield. The Enfield figure appears unusual and has been investigated but no further clarification has been received as yet.

Table 14 Housing Completion trends

| Year | Total housing unit completions | |-----------------------|-------------------------------| | 2002 calendar year | 21,531 | | 2003/4 financial year | 24,608 | | 2004/5 financial year | 27,364 | | 2005/6 financial year | 28,309 |

Sources: 2001/2 GLA Annual Housing Provision Monitor 2003/6 LDD – residential completions

Table 15 Residential planning approvals (no. of dwellings)

| Year | Central | East | West | North | South | London | |------|---------|------|------|-------|-------|--------| | 2000/1 | 8690 | 11,635 | 4525 | 2561 | 3035 | 30,404 | | 2001/2 | 8551 | 13,182 | 5828 | 2829 | 4133 | 31,083 | | 2002/3 | 9248 | 21,013 | 5670 | 3353 | 5034 | 38,874 | | 2003/4 | 14,130 | 19,442 | 3729 | 3629 | 4599 | 42,218 | | 2004/5 | 11,061 | 17,583 | 9809 | 4308 | 5468 | 53,157 | | 2005/6 | 11,061 | 17,583 | 8441 | 7614 | 6416 | 51,115 |

Source: LDD - residential planning permissions.

Note: there are some differences with previously published data because the LDD system is continuously updated.

In 2005/6 a further 51,115 units were added to the already generous pipeline of planning permissions. Whilst indirectly this is a positive contribution to final housing output in the form of completions, it should be borne in mind that a significant number of the permissions granted during the past year were for very large schemes which will take many years to build out. In addition, some planning permissions are not built, or subsequent approvals are given, meaning that these levels of residential developments are not directly transferable into the number of dwellings that are completed.

Key Performance Indicator 5 An increased supply of affordable homes

Target Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016.

Affordable housing output increased between 2003/4 and 2004/5 and fell back slightly in 2005/6 to 7653 or 31% of total conventional provision (new build and rehabilitation). Table 16 shows the individual borough performances in delivery of affordable housing during 2005/6. As single year figures are subject to ‘one off’ variations a more reliable trend is show using the average over three years, these are also included in the table.

There remains a wide range of borough affordable housing target figures. As the Local Development Documents are progressed these will increasingly reflect the strategic 50% target for affordable housing provision. The trend between 2002 and 2004, as London Plan policy emerged, was for boroughs to increase their affordable housing targets. Since the publication of the London Plan, several more boroughs have adopted or proposed borough-wide targets of 50%.

16 boroughs now have borough-wide affordable housing targets of 50% or more and four other boroughs seek 50% affordable housing on some sites. The four boroughs with the lowest targets are Bromley, Enfield, Redbridge and Wandsworth. The Mayor is seeking early review of targets through the LDF process of all boroughs not conforming with the framework for targets set out in London Plan policy 3A.7. | Borough and Housing Corp Sub-Region | 2005/06 Overall Performance | London Plan Target | Social rent | Intermediary | Net AH | Conventional net completions (HPS) | Social rent | Intermediary | Net AH | Conventional net completions (HPS) | |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------|-------------|--------------|-------|-----------------------------------|-------------|--------------|-------|-----------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham\* | 217 | 510 | 467 | 202 | 669 | 1246 | 200 | 47 | 247 | 495 | | City of London | 62 | 110 | 48 | 55 | 103 | 394 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | | Hackney | 1725 | 720 | 721 | 359 | 1080 | 2433 | 90 | 95 | 185 | 805 | | Havering | 578 | 350 | 127 | 109 | 236 | 1397 | 6 | 79 | 85 | 310 | | Newham | 721 | 890 | 748 | 332 | 1080 | 2951 | 233 | 155 | 388 | 919 | | Redbridge | 102 | 540 | 343 | 181 | 524 | 1596 | 97 | 78 | 175 | 636 | | Tower Hamlets | 2734 | 2070 | 1690 | 507 | 2197 | 7221 | 918 | 208 | 1126 | 2575 | | Waltham Forest | 658 | 460 | 372 | 133 | 505 | 940 | 126 | 80 | 206 | 492 | | **East sub-total** | **6797** | **5650** | **4516** | **1878** | **6394** | **18178** | **1670** | **742** | **2412** | **6280** | | Bexley | 96 | 280 | 132 | 46 | 178 | 1183 | 46 | 12 | 58 | 96 | | Bromley | 1038 | 570 | 346 | 112 | 458 | 1896 | 205 | 49 | 254 | 617 | | Greenwich | 1774 | 800 | 582 | 439 | 1021 | 6084 | 114 | 86 | 200 | 1774 | | Lewisham | 1116 | 870 | 566 | 163 | 729 | 1715 | 35 | 57 | 92 | 916 | | Southwark | 1181 | 1480 | 625 | 516 | 1141 | 3288 | 227 | 135 | 362 | 1165 | | **South-east sub-total** | **5205** | **4000** | **2251** | **1276** | **3527** | **14166** | **627** | **339** | **966** | **4568** | | Croydon | 1512 | 850 | 716 | 189 | 905 | 1957 | 173 | 71 | 244 | 669 | | Kingston upon Thames | 461 | 340 | 164 | 52 | 216 | 1339 | 4 | 14 | 18 | 333 | | Lambeth | 1262 | 1450 | 623 | 350 | 973 | 2477 | 280 | 158 | 438 | 1069 | | Merton | 577 | 430 | 250 | 54 | 304 | 1095 | 101 | 33 | 134 | 698 | | Richmond upon Thames | 996 | 270 | 305 | 119 | 424 | 1711 | 60 | 31 | 91 | 893 | | Sutton | 457 | 370 | 221 | 120 | 341 | 966 | 22 | 36 | 58 | 502 | | Wandsworth | 1500 | 820 | 150 | 314 | 464 | 3872 | 9 | 95 | 104 | 1315 | | **South-west sub-total** | **6765** | **4530** | **2429** | **1198** | **3627** | **13417** | **649** | **438** | **1087** | **5479** | | Barnet | 768 | 890 | 471 | 122 | 593 | 2359 | 216 | 92 | 308 | 768 | | Camden | 1375 | 850 | 333 | 138 | 471 | 1454 | 84 | 94 | 178 | 624 | | Enfield | -146 | 660 | 415 | 137 | 552 | 1307 | 188 | 77 | 265 | 973 | | Haringey | 402 | 970 | 635 | 401 | 1036 | 1646 | 220 | 230 | 450 | 530 | | Islington | 839 | 900 | 603 | 316 | 919 | 2425 | 181 | 310 | 491 | 736 | | Westminster | 1220 | 970 | 552 | 151 | 703 | 3279 | 268 | 97 | 365 | 1260 | | **North sub-total** | **4458** | **5240** | **3009** | **1265** | **4274** | **12470** | **1157** | **900** | **2057** | **4891** | | Brent | 1397 | 680 | 548 | 149 | 697 | 2208 | 168 | 28 | 196 | 1039 | | Ealing | 440 | 650 | 519 | 257 | 776 | 1488 | 188 | 49 | 237 | 602 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 395 | 400 | 598 | 184 | 782 | 955 | 68 | 33 | 101 | 316 | | Harrow | 740 | 330 | 161 | 143 | 304 | 1329 | 25 | 106 | 131 | 447 | | Hillingdon | 974 | 440 | 277 | 92 | 369 | 967 | 70 | 28 | 98 | 449 | | Hounslow | 905 | 470 | 381 | 324 | 705 | 1877 | 94 | 209 | 303 | 481 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 233 | 540 | 237 | 35 | 272 | 1012 | 55 | 10 | 65 | 211 | | **West sub-region** | **5084** | **3510** | **2721** | **1184** | **3905** | **9836** | **668** | **463** | **1131** | **3545** | | London | 28309 | 22930 | 14926 | 6801 | 21727 | 68067 | 4771 | 2882 | 7653 | 24763 |

*Total Housing Completions (Inc Non-conventional) | Borough | Outturn | Short-life | Replace-ment | Net | Total conventional net completions (HPS) | AH as % of total | |-------------------------|---------|------------|--------------|-----|----------------------------------------|-----------------| | Islington | 587 | 30 | 66 | 491 | 736 | 67% | | Camden | 178 | | | 178 | 624 | 29% | | Westminster | 365 | | | 365 | 1260 | 29% | | Kensington & Chelsea | 89 | 24 | | 65 | 211 | 31% | | Wandsworth | 104 | | | 104 | 1315 | 8% | | Lambeth | 446 | 8 | | 438 | 1069 | 41% | | Southwark | 396 | 34 | | 362 | 1165 | 31% | | CENTRAL | 2165 | 88 | 74 | 2003| 6380 | 31% | | Barking & Dagenham | 247 | | | 247 | 495 | 50% | | Bexley | 58 | | | 58 | 96 | 60% | | City | 0 | | | 0 | 48 | 0% | | Greenwich | 270 | 70 | | 200 | 1774 | 11% | | Hackney | 225 | 23 | 17 | 185 | 805 | 23% | | Havering | 85 | | | 85 | 310 | 27% | | Lewisham | 387 | 97 | 198 | 92 | 916 | 10% | | Newham | 421 | 33 | | 388 | 919 | 42% | | Redbridge | 179 | 4 | | 175 | 636 | 28% | | Tower Hamlets | 1135 | 9 | | 1126| 2575 | 44% | | EAST | 3007 | 236 | 215 | 2556| 8574 | 30% | | Barnet | 308 | | | 308 | 768 | 40% | | Enfield | 313 | 48 | 55 | 265 | 973* | 22% | | Haringey | 456 | 6 | | 450 | 530 | 85% | | Waltham Forest | 213 | 7 | | 206 | 492 | 42% | | NORTH | 1290 | 61 | 55 | 1229| 2793\* | 42% | | Bromley | 261 | 7 | | 254 | 617 | 41% | | Croydon | 255 | 11 | | 244 | 669 | 36% | | Kingston | 18 | | | 18 | 333 | 5% | | Merton | 134 | | | 134 | 698 | 19% | | Richmond | 91 | | | 91 | 893 | 10% | | Sutton | 234 | 45 | 131 | 58 | 502 | 12% | | SOUTH | 993 | 63 | 131 | 799 | 3712 | 22% | | Brent | 196 | | | 196 | 1039 | 19% | | Ealing | 237 | | | 237 | 602 | 39% | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 101 | | | 101 | 316 | 32% | | Harrow | 131 | | | 131 | 447 | 29% | | Hillingdon | 98 | | | 98 | 499 | 20% | | Hounslow | 303 | | | 303 | 481 | 63% | | WEST | 1066 | 0 | 0 | 1066| 3384 | 32% | | LONDON | 8533 | 448 | 475 | 7653| 24843\* | 31% |

Sources: Affordable housing information from Housing Corporation, Conventional Completions from London Development Database. Note: the two sets of figures sometimes relate to different time periods and cannot be completely reconciled in the above tables.

Notes: 1 Enfield completions figure has been adjusted so that Barbot estate demolitions are not all counted as net losses in single financial year 2005/6. 2 The City has provided over 100 units in other boroughs. Table 19 Borough Affordable Housing Out-turn

Borough Affordable Housing Outturn Affordable housing completions as % total net completions Total of Financial Years 2003/04- 2005/06

| Borough | Outturn % | |-------------------------------|-----------| | Hammersmith and Fulham | 90% | | Haringey | 80% | | Waltham Forest | 70% | | Barking and Dagenham | 60% | | Ealing | 50% | | Croydon | 40% | | Hackney | 30% | | Lewisham | 20% | | Enfield | 10% | | Lambeth | 0% | | Hillingdon | 0% | | Hounslow | 0% | | Newham | 0% | | Islington | 0% | | Sutton | 0% | | Southwark | 0% | | Redbridge | 0% | | Camden | 0% | | Brent | 0% | | Tower Hamlets | 0% | | Merton | 0% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 0% | | City of London | 0% | | Barnet | 0% | | Bromley | 0% | | Harrow | 0% | | Havering | 0% | | Greenwich | 0% | | Kingston upon Thames | 0% | | Bexley | 0% | | Wandsworth | 0% |

### Table 20

Affordable housing policy by borough (ranked by average affordable housing out turn 2003/4-2005/6)

| Borough | Borough Policy Target (or practice) as at 2002 | Borough policy target as at December 2006 | Out-turn 2003/4 to 2005/6 | |--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Hammersmith & Fulham | 65% proposed | 65% | 82% | | Haringey | 30% | 50% | 63% | | Waltham Forest | 40% | 50% | 54% | | Barking & Dagenham | 25% | 25% (although 35% for individual sites) | 54% | | Ealing | 50% | 50% | 52% | | Croydon | 40% | 50% | 46% | | Hackney | 25% | 50% (interim housing statement) | 44% | | Lewisham | 30% | 35% | 43% | | Enfield | 25% | 25% | 42% | | Lambeth | 35-50% | 40% (50% with grant) | 39% | | Hillingdon | 25% | 50% (25% preferred options 2005) | 38% | | Hounslow | 50% | 50% | 38% | | Islington | 25% | 35% | 38% | | Newham | 25% | 35% | 37% | | Sutton | 25% | 40% | 35% | | Southwark | 25% | 50% | 35% | | Redbridge | 25% | 25% | 33% | | Camden | 50% proposed | 50% | 32% | | Brent | 30-50% | 50% | 32% | | Tower Hamlets | 25-33% | 50% (35% preferred options 2005) | 30% | | Merton | 30% | 30% (Key issues 50%) | 28% | | Kensington & Chelsea | 33% | 33% (up to 50% on major sites) currently under review | 27% | | City | None | 33% | 26% | | Barnet | 30% | 50% | 25% | | Richmond u Thames | 40% | 40% | 25% | | Bromley | 20% | 25% (site target 35%) | 24% | | Harrow | 30% | 50% | 23% | | Westminster | | 50% (30% in CAZ) | 21% | | Havering | None | 35% | 17% | | Greenwich | 35% | 35% (50% on large sites) | 17% | | Kingston u Thames | 50% | 40% (50% on large sites) | 16% | | Bexley | 25% | 35% (consulting on 50%) | 15% | | Wandsworth | None | 25% (33% proposed) | 12% | Objective 3 to make London a more prosperous city

Key Performance Indicator 6 Increasing sustainability and social inclusion by increasing the proportion of London residents working in jobs in London over the plan period.

Target Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in London.

Comprehensive statistics relating to this target are available through the census and are given in the table below. This data is only collected every 10 years. It shows a small percentage increase in the proportion of London workers who live within London against absolute net increases in those working both within and outside London.

Table 21 Workers in London 2001

| Year | Total workers | Living in London | Living outside London | % of workers living in London | |------|---------------|------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------| | 1991 | 3,349,350 | 2,676,620 | 672,730 | 79.9% | | 2001 | 3,805,655 | 3,083,116 | 722,539 | 81% |

Table 22 Londoners Out-commuting 1991-2001

| Year | Workers out commuting | % change in out commuting | |------|-----------------------|---------------------------| | 1991 | 149,820 | - | | 2001 | 236,018 | 57.5% increase |

Source: 1991, 2001 Census

Table 23 Londoners Out-commuting 2001-2006

| Year | Workers out commuting | Yearly % change in out commuting | |------|-----------------------|---------------------------------| | 2000 | 257 000 | - | | 2001 | 254 000 | -1.2% | | 2002 | 264 000 | +3.9% | | 2003 | 285 000 | +8% | | 2004 | 275 000 | -3.5% | | 2005 | 281 000 | +2.2% | | 2006 | 331 000 | +17.8% | | Total change 2000-2006 | +28.8% |

Source: Labour Force Survey - note this data is based on a sample survey rather than full census survey.

Although out commuting remains a relatively small proportion of the total London resident workforce, there is a marked increase in the number of people out-commuting. Key Performance Indicator 7 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market

Target Stock of office planning permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years.

Ratio of permission to average three years starts at end 2006 = 8.4 : 1

In terms of aggregate volume of permissions, the planning pipeline is being maintained at a level comfortably above the minimum ratio of 3:1.

Starts were somewhat lower than expected given the tightening supply and demand balance, suggesting an element of caution amongst developers and funding institutions in spite of rising rents. This is probably particularly the case in the City, where there has been concern about potential oversupply following a very high rate of starts in 2005. There was also only one start at Canary Wharf in 2006, although more can be expected in response to letting activity in 2007.

Although the volume of permissions appears from this data to have bounced back from the downturn in 2005, it is worth noting that that data includes for the first time 4 million sq ft permitted at King’s Cross. King’s Cross counts, of course, but it is a scheme that requires much preparatory work and if it commences will be phased over a considerable period of time.

Table 24 Ratio of planning permission to 3 year average starts

| Year | Ratio of planning permission to 3 year average starts | |------|------------------------------------------------------| | 2003 | 6.4:1 | | 2004 | 12:1 | | 2005 | 8:1 | | 2006 | 8.4:1 |

Source: Chippendale Commercial Research, 2007

Figure x - Central London Office Starts and Year End Permissions 1985-2006

Source: London Property Research Ltd Key Performance Indicator 8 Direction of economic and population growth to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfill the priority to east London

Target Development in Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification for each sub-region measured against the Chapter 5 indicative figures in the London Plan.

East London is benefiting from regeneration and investment through a number of initiatives. The establishment of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation and the Olympics Delivery Authority have spearheaded initiatives over the last year. Progress has been made on many of the Development Frameworks for these Strategic locations, with the capacities for both homes and jobs increased through the SRDFs and the Further Alterations to the London Plan. A table giving updates on these is contained in Appendix 4. Progress on many of them will change rapidly over the coming year and the table will be updated in each Annual Monitoring Report.

Objective 4 to promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination

Key Performance Indicator 9 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market

Target Age specific unemployment rates for black and minority ethnic groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011.

Table 25 Age specific unemployment(^1) rates for White and BME(^2) groups, Greater London, 2005

| Age Group | All persons | White groups | BME groups | White/BME ratio | |-----------------|-------------|--------------|------------|-----------------| | | Unemployed | Rate (%) | Unemployed | Rate (%) | Unemployed | Rate (%) | 2005 | 2004 | | All working age| 260,000 | 7.2 | 135,000 | 5.4 | 124,000 | 11.8 | 2.2 | 2.7 | | Age 16-24 | 93,000 | 19.5 | 49,000 | 15.9 | 44,000 | 26.1 | 1.6 | 1.8 | | Age 25-44 | 118,000 | 5.8 | 60,000 | 4.3 | 58,000 | 9.3 | 2.2 | 2.1 | | Age 45-59/64 | 50,000 | 4.6 | 27,000 | 3.3 | 23,000 | 8.5 | 2.6 | 1.9 |

Source: Annual Population Survey 2005

Londoners from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups are twice as likely as those from White groups to be unemployed. The gap in rates persists within different age groups and data are not significantly different to rates in 2004.

______________________________________________________________________

(^1) The definition of unemployment used here is the ILO measure (International Labour Organisation) which relates to people not in work, who had actively looked for work in the last four weeks and who were available to start work in the next two weeks. Rates express the number unemployed as a proportion of the labour force (ie the economically active population).

(^2) BME (Black and minority ethnic) groups refers to all ethnic groups other than White groups. Analysis of longer term trend data (1985-2005) suggests the gap in unemployment rates between White and BME groups has persisted over time despite falls in the general level of unemployment. The data are estimates and subject to a considerable degree of sampling variability, so it is difficult to come to firm conclusions about progress in the short term. Data will need to be monitored in the longer term in order to assess progress on this challenging indicator.

While data presented here relate to aggregations of minority ethnic groups, it is fully recognised that within the BME population there is huge variation in unemployment rates. 2001 Census data shows that rates ranged from 5.9 per cent for Indian Londoners up to 20.5 per cent among Bangladeshi Londoners. Rates were also high for Black Londoners (12.3-17.6 per cent). Available survey data are not robust enough to reliably monitor the unemployment experience of different ethnic groups in between Censuses.

**Unemployment rates by ethnicity, Greater London 1985-2005**

![Unemployment rates by ethnicity, Greater London 1985-2005](image)

Source: Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey & Annual Population Survey Key Performance Indicator 10 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market

Target Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011.

Table 26 Income Support lone parent claimants as % of all lone parent families

| Quarter | Greater London | Great Britain | Difference London in percentage (London-GB) | |---------|----------------|---------------|---------------------------------------------| | | Lone parent IS claimants | As % of lone parent families | Lone parent IS claimants | As % of lone parent families | London in percentage (London-GB) | | May 2001 | 168,000 | 59.1 | 888,000 | 50.0 | 9.1 | | May 2002 | 164,000 | 56.1 | 856,000 | 47.0 | 9.2 | | May 2003 | 163,000 | 54.3 | 847,000 | 45.3 | 9.0 | | May 2004 | 162,000 | 53.2 | 810,000 | 42.6 | 10.5 | | May 2005 | 159,400 | 51.5 | 774,500 | 40.2 | 11.4 | | May 2006 | 159,300 | 50.8 | 756,900 | 38.7 | 12.1 |

Sources: GLA calculations based on data from Department of Work and Pensions, ODPM and GROS.

Lone parent families in London are more likely to be dependant on Income Support relative to the national average. Since 2001, the number of lone parents families on Income Support has reduced in both London and GB, but the gap between the two has been increasing since 2003.

Key Performance Indicator 11 Improving performance against Neighbourhood Renewal floor targets as a co-ordinated approach to tackling deprivation

Target Improvements in performance against all agreed floor targets.

There are now 15 separate “floor targets” which assess how the most deprived local authorities in England are performing on fundamental quality of life factors. The floor targets cover education attainment, crime, health and employment rates. There are 21 London boroughs out of the 91 local authorities that are covered by the targets. The relevant boroughs are Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Brent, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, and Westminster. Data is usually given up to 2005 and the full range of results can be viewed at http://www.fti.neighbourhood.gov.uk/page.asp?id=5

In summary about two thirds of the 15 floor targets show an improvement from 2004 to 2005 across the 21 boroughs. The targets relating to education, health, housing and litter generally show an improvement. Crime figures is a mixed picture with Robbery rates increasing in 17 of the boroughs. Employment rates also show a mixed pattern of some improvements and some decreases in the number of people working and many boroughs show a variable fluctuation being up one year and down the next when examined over a longer time period.

**Objective 5 to improve London’s accessibility**

**Key Performance Indicator 12** Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target** Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head.

**Table 27 Public and private transport indexes**

| Year | Public Transport index | Private Transport Index | |------|------------------------|-------------------------| | 2001 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | 2002 | 102.5 | 100.0 | | 2003 | 108.3 | 99.6 | | 2004 | 112.1 | 97.6 | | 2005 | 111.6 | 95.8 |

The table uses 2001 as its base year.

**Note:** figures for 2003-4 have altered slightly from previous AMRs due to recalculating the data but the overall picture remains the same.

Sources: Transport for London

Numbers of journeys are taken from the time series compiled for the 2006 London Travel Report. This includes all journeys to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey, respectively).

The results show a 11.6% increase in public transport journeys per head between 2001 and 2005, compared with a 4.2% decrease in car journeys per head. 2005 saw a notable drop in the use of the car and a drop in the use of public transport. This effect has been put down to the impact of the London bombings in July 2005.

**Key Performance Indicator 13** Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target** From 2001-2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent.

London Plan Policy 3C.16 - ‘Tackling congestion and reducing traffic’ - sets out targets for reductions in weekday traffic growth for different areas of London. Monitoring by Transport for London within the area of the Congestion Charging Zone has shown that levels of traffic (for vehicles of four or more wheels) fell by 15 per cent between 2002 and 2003 and a further 6 per cent between 2003 and 2004. Available indicators of traffic circulating within the charging zone for 2005 suggest broadly stable or slightly declining traffic levels, however road network issues have affected the continuity of these counts. The average annualised reduction in traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels) entering the charging zone during charging hours was 3% between 2004 and 2005, which represented an overall reduction of 21% compared to pre-charging levels in 2002. Estimates from DfT’s National Traffic Census indicate that, in Inner London (outside Central London), annual traffic on major roads fell by 2% between 2001 and 2002, by 1% between 2002 and 2003 and by 2% between 2003 and 2004, and 1% between 2004 and 2005 giving a decrease of over 6% since 2001. In Outer London, traffic levels on major roads fell by 1.5 between 2001 and 2005.

Over the whole network, including minor roads, there has been a 2% decline in Inner London traffic and 1% increase in Outer London, between 2001 and 2005.

**Key Performance Indicator 14** Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target** A five per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011.

**Table 28 Passengers on the River Thames**

| Year | Number of Passengers | % increase on previous year | |-----------------------|----------------------|----------------------------| | April 2000 – March 2001 | 1,573,830 | - | | April 2001 – March 2002 | 2,011,736 | 28% | | April 2002 – March 2003 | 2,030,385 | 1% | | April 2003 – March 2004 | 2,123,820 | 4.6% | | April 2004 – March 2005 | 2,343,280 | 10.3% | | April 2005 – March 2006 | 2,373,350 | 1% |

1 Figures are for passenger journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services Piers and the Thames Clippers Savoy to Woolwich Arsenal service. This excludes a number of other services working from independent piers. Figures also include passengers on charter boats. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers which are passenger journeys.

Source: TfL London River Services

The table shows that the number of passengers on the Thames is steadily increasing over the baseline situation in 2001. The total increase over the 5 year period is 48.9%. Following the events of 7 July 2005, passenger numbers on tourist services fell significantly, but have now recovered to previous levels. Passenger numbers on the riverbus services have shown 40-50% growth since 7 July 2005. In July 2007, riverbus services will be expanded to serve the O2, for which Thames Clippers have ordered 6 new 220 passenger capacity riverbuses. Table 29 Cargo trade on the River Thames

| Year | Tonnes of Cargo | % increase on previous year | |------|-----------------|----------------------------| | 2001 | 10 757 000 | - | | 2002 | 9 806 000 | 9% decrease | | 2003 | 9 236 000 | 6% decrease | | 2004 | 8 743 000 | 5% decrease | | 2005 | 9,288,000 | 6% increase |

Source: Port of London Authority.

The Table shows the first increase in the amount of cargo handled within the London part of the Port of London since the publication of the London Plan. This still means that there has been a net decrease of 13.7% overall from the baseline year of 2001. Given this figure this indicator will be particularly important to monitor whether there is a reversal of recent trends. This is significant in the context of the number of major construction projects over the coming years which have the potential to utilize the river for bulk cargo transport. These include the Olympics, Crossrail and the Thames overflow sewer. The proposed further Alterations to the London Plan also include policy changes to further promote the use of water transport.

These potential changes highlight the continuing need for a supportive policy framework in the London Plan and the other Mayoral Strategies to encourage the use of water transport wherever appropriate. The Mayor’s refusal of a planning application for inappropriate development at Peruvian Wharf in LB Newham was upheld by the Secretary of State and demonstrates the strength of policy in maintaining London’s “Safeguarded Wharves” for river transport purposes.

There continues to be interest in using the canal system for freight, with the Waste by Water project in the Lee Valley and a new waste transfer station in west London expecting to use the canal. These schemes are relatively smaller in scale than cargoes on the Thames.

Key Performance Indicator 15 Increase in public transport capacity

Target 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between 2001 – 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2.

The London Plan aims for a 5% increase in public transport capacity between 2001 and 2006. This target is well on track to be achieved. It was reported in the first Annual Monitoring Report that, by the end of 2004, public transport capacity had increased by 4% compared to 2001. Last year it was reported that through 2005 further increases in public transport capacity were delivered, including continued increase in bus capacity, the opening of the DLR branch to London City Airport and additional peak rail services on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line, West London Line and North London Line. The investment in transport capacity continued with a seventh carriage for Jubilee line trains, increasing capacity by 3000 passengers every morning and evening during peak hours, and a 30% increase in capacity on the Waterloo & City line. The bus network has been expanded, including more orbital and night buses. The DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal, due to open in 2009, is under construction, and track required for the DLR extension to Stratford International was transferred to DLR in December and preliminary construction work is due to start in January 2007.

Looking ahead to 2011, the transport projects funded within TfL’s 5 Year Investment Programme, in addition to the opening of CTRL, will deliver an increase in public transport capacity broadly in line with the London Plan. Beyond 2011, the latest review of project programmes indicate that the increase in public transport capacity is progressing broadly as planned. However, this increase is dependent on a number of projects, particularly Crossrail, where funding is not yet committed. The Mayor and GLA group will actively work with Government and stakeholders to secure the resources necessary to deliver these projects and the objectives of the London Plan.

**Key Performance Indicator 16** Increase in public transport capacity

**Target** Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to support development in opportunity and intensification areas.

An initial assessment of the adequacy of public transport capacity at each of the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification was carried out to inform the draft sub-regional development frameworks, published in 2005. Summary details of infrastructure provision for the opportunity and intensification areas can be found in Annex 2 of the relevant final SRDF, published in May 2006.

**Key Performance Indicator 17** Increase in the number of jobs located in areas with high PTAL values

**Target** GLA and TfL will investigate the practicality of monitoring growth of jobs in high PTAL areas compared to low PTAL areas by the time of publication of the second Annual Monitoring Report.

Using land use classes as a rough proxy for employment densities, the London Development Database has been used in combination with a GIS system to generate a matrix of types of employment development permitted within three groupings of public transport accessibility.

The results are shown in the table below. B1 uses, which include office development are heavily focused within the more accessible areas (PTAL zones 5 and 6) whereas B2 and B8 uses are much less prevalent in such locations. This is in line with the general trend of providing such uses in the more appropriate and sustainable locations.

Likewise, the majority of B2 and B8 uses are being provided in the locations with the lowest public transport accessibility (PTAL zones 1 and 2). This is because a key requirement for such developments is often access to the national motorway network and/or strategic rail/port freight facilities. It is notable that some 15.6% of B1 uses are located in the lowest PTAL zones but it must be remembered that B1 uses also include light industry and research/development uses which may well seek edge or out of centre locations.

A comparison with the 2004/5 data indicates that last year there was a stronger focus of B1 uses in high PTAL zones, mainly due to the substantial drop in B1 permissions in the low PTAL zones as the permissions in high PTAL zones have remained similar. The overall trend supports policy to encourage higher intensity land uses to occupy those sites most accessible by public transport. Table 30 Employment floorspace permitted by PTAL zone

2005/6 data

| Accessibility (PTAL Group) | Employment floorspace by land use class 2005/6 | | |---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--| | | B1 m² | B1 % | B2 m² | B2 % | B8 m² | B8 % | | Low (0 to 2) | 221,231 | 15.6 | 179,073 | 92.8 | 322,280 | 86.1 | | Medium (3 to 4) | 99,669 | 7.0 | 10,700 | 5.5 | 23,193 | 6.2 | | High (5 to 6) | 1,098,795 | 77.4 | 3,179 | 1.6 | 28,852 | 7.7 | | Totals | 1,419,695 | 100 | 192,952 | 100 | 374,325 | 100 |

Previous data 2004/5

| Accessibility (PTAL Group) | Employment floorspace by land use class 2004/5 | | |---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--| | | B1 m² | B1 % | B2 m² | B2 % | B8 m² | B8 % | | Low (0-2) | 829 | 40.2 | 168 | 88.8 | 208 | 90.4 | | Med (3-4) | 183 | 8.7 | 17 | 9.4 | 16 | 7.0 | | High (5-6) | 1,084 | 51.7 | 332 | 1.7 | 576 | 2.5 | | Totals | 2,097 | 100 | 189 | 100 | 231 | 100 |

Source LDD

Notes

PTAL – Public Transport Accessibility Level B1 - Offices, light industry, research and development uses. B2 – General Industrial uses B8 – Storage and distribution uses including warehouses. The table includes development which has received planning permission between April 2004 - March 2005 and relates to total permissions including new build, extensions and change of use.

Objective 6 to make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city

Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat

Target No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period.

Table 31 Changes in protected habitat due to new development

| Borough | Protected area being lost (ha) | Additional protected area being designated or retained (ha) | Net Change (ha) | |---------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Hackney | 0.21 | 0 | -0.21 | | Haringey| 0.4 | 0 | -0.40 | | Total | 0.61 | 0 | -0.61 |

Source: London Development Database

Two small losses of protected sites were recorded in 2005/6. In both cases these related to the provision of sports pitches, in one case this was related to school provision. No other boroughs recorded the loss of any protected sites. Key Performance Indicator 19 Increase in household waste recycled or composted

Target At least 25 per cent by 2005. At least 30 per cent by 2010. (will be 35% from April 2007 following Early Alterations) At least 33 per cent by 2015. (will be 45% from April 2007 following Early Alterations)

The targets for this indicator will be changed as a result of the publication of the London Plan Early Alterations in December 2006.

London’s household recycling rate for 2005/6 was 20.7%. This represents a continuation of the increase that has been seen over the past few years. However, the target is a considerable way below the 25% target for 2005 and as Table 34 shows London now has a lower recycling rate than any other English Region. This is particularly disappointing as London was close to the average rate only a few years ago.

Furthermore the recently published Further Alterations to the London Plan step up the targets for 2010 and 2015 in line with the Mayor’s Municipal Waste Strategy. The Government is also seeking to alter the recycling targets nationally and is proposing a 50% target by 2020 through its Consultation on the Review of England’s Waste Strategy 2006.

Whilst some boroughs have made good progress, collectively London waste authorities have failed to achieve the national household waste recycling target of 25 per cent in 2005 and has gone from fourth best region to the worst region in the last decade. Twenty-two out of London’s 37 waste authorities failed to achieve their statutory household waste recycling targets for 2005/06.

No other global city has such a fragmented system for managing its waste. This impacts on recycling and waste management but also other agendas including climate change, transport and energy. The Mayor believes that the Government’s recent proposals for waste management in London fail to address the delivery challenges facing London and will not enable delivery of a sustainable, coordinated waste management plan for London. For this reason the Mayor is lobbying for the introduction of amendments to the GLA Bill to create a Single Waste Authority that will replace London’s existing 16 waste disposal authorities. The Alterations to the London Plan alone may not be enough to ensure meeting this target.

Table 32 London’s Household waste recycling rate 1996/97 – 2005/06

| Year | Household Recycling Rate (%) | |----------|------------------------------| | 1996/97 | 6.1 | | 1997/98 | 7.0 | | 1998/99 | 7.6 | | 1999/2000| 9.0 | | 2000/1 | 9.0 | | 2001/2 | 9.4 | | 2002/3 | 10.9 | | 2003/4 | 13.3 | | 2004/5 | 17.6 | | 2005/6 | 20.7 |

Source: DEFRA http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/archive/mwb200611.xls Table 5: Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2005/06

### Table 33 London waste authority household recycling rates

| Waste authority | 2002-3 (%) | 2003-4 (%) | 2004-5 (%) | 2005-6 (%) | 2005-6 Target\* | |----------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|----------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 2.2% | 6.7% | 14.0% | 16.6% | 18 | | Barnet | 12.1% | 16.7% | 19.9% | 27.47 | 27 | | Bexley | 22.0% | 20.6% | 30.7% | 37.71 | 30 | | Brent | 6.6% | 8.5% | 14.0% | 20.01 | 18 | | Bromley | 15.4% | 20.1% | 23.3% | 27.25 | 21 | | Camden | 16.1% | 19.1% | 25.2% | 27.14 | 30 | | City of London | 14.5% | 19.0% | 14.3% | 18.1 | 18 | | Croydon | 13.1% | 14.1% | 13.0% | 16.17 | 30 | | Ealing | 10.6% | 11.7% | 15.2% | 19.28 | 30 | | Enfield | 11.7% | 15.6% | 23.6% | 27.29 | 27 | | Greenwich | 9.4% | 12.0% | 19.0% | 21.66 | 18 | | Hackney | 2.6% | 6.9% | 12.2% | 16.21 | 18 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 8.5% | 15.3% | 19.6% | 21.49 | 24 | | Haringey | 4.4% | 8.8% | 14.3% | 19.23 | 18 | | Harrow | 9.4% | 13.1% | 18.8% | 26.7 | 24 | | Havering | 6.7% | 9.6% | 15.5% | 17.81 | 27 | | Hillingdon | 19.5% | 23.9% | 27.2% | 27.7 | 21 | | Hounslow | 15.1% | 15.7% | 17.4% | 19.25 | 30 | | Islington | 5.8% | 8.1% | 11.0% | 18.29 | 18 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 7.9% | 16.4% | 18.1% | 19.94 | 30 | | Kingston-upon-Thames | 19.1% | 18.5% | 18.3% | 23.97 | 30 | | Lambeth | 10.9% | 10.5% | 16.5% | 22.15 | 21 | | Lewisham | 7.3% | 8.4% | 10.2% | 12.2 | 18 | | Merton | 15.0% | 14.8% | 20.3% | 22.59 | 27 | | Newham | 4.2% | 5.5% | 6.2% | 10.13 | 18 | | Redbridge | 10.0% | 12.3% | 15.5% | 17.34 | 21 | | Richmond upon Thames | 20.5% | 22.0% | 23.8% | 28.59 | 30 | | Southwark | 4.7% | 7.1% | 10.8% | 14.96 | 18 | | Sutton | 19.3% | 25.5% | 27.9% | 29.07 | 30 | | Tower Hamlets | 3.4% | 5.1% | 7.4% | 8.85 | 18 | | Waltham Forest | 10.2% | 11.8% | 18.1% | 21.85 | 18 | | Wandsworth | 10.5% | 17.5% | 17.2% | 20.96 | 24 | | Westminster | 11.5% | 13.2% | 15.3% | 18.29 | 18 | | East London Waste Authority | 6.1% | 8.0% | 12.5% | 15.25 | 18 | | North London Waste Disposal Authority | 9.6% | 12.7% | 18.3% | 20.89 | 18 | | West London Waste Authority | 13.9% | 17.0% | 20.1% | 24.59 | 27 | | Western Riverside Waste Disposal Authority | 11.5% | 14.8% | 17.6% | 22.03 | 24 |

Notes: Shading indicates boroughs missing the 2005/6 Target

- Best Value Monitoring Target

Source: Defra

### Table 34 Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2005/06 (percentage)

| Region | 2000/01 | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | North East | 4.1 | 5.2 | 6.6 | 12.2 | 15.4 | 21.1 | | North West | 7.5 | 9.2 | 11.3 | 14.2 | 19.2 | 23.8 | | Yorkshire & Humber | 7.3 | 8.9 | 11.2 | 14.5 | 18.6 | 21.8 | | East Midlands | 13.1 | 13.7 | 15.1 | 19.3 | 26.3 | 31.8 | | West Midlands | 9.1 | 10.2 | 13.0 | 15.7 | 19.9 | 25.1 | | East | 15.2 | 17.4 | 19.4 | 23.4 | 29.8 | 34.1 | | London | 9.0 | 9.3 | 10.9 | 13.3 | 17.6 | 20.7 | | South East | 16.4 | 17.7 | 19.6 | 22.8 | 26.1 | 29.2 | | South West | 14.9 | 16.6 | 18.6 | 21.4 | 26.6 | 31.4 | | **England** | 11.2 | 12.5 | 14.5 | 17.8 | 22.5 | 26.7 |

Source: DEFRA

### Table 35 Total Municipal Waste in London

| Household waste from: | 2000/01 | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Regular household collection | 2,231 | 2,262 | 2,216 | 2,201 | 2,081 | 2,112 | | Other household sources | 336 | 310 | 298 | 274 | 306 | 277 | | Civic amenity sites | 520 | 519 | 497 | 411 | 328 | 250 | | Household recycling | 304 | 317 | 367 | 445 | 581 | 687 | | Total household | 3,390 | 3,408 | 3,379 | 3,331 | 3,297 | 3,326 | | Non household sources (excl. recycling) | 1,008 | 996 | 1,024 | 962 | 1,011 | 810 | | Non household recycling | 40 | 33 | 43 | 49 | 62 | 76 | | **Total municipal waste** | 4,438 | 4,438 | 4,446 | 4,342 | 4,370 | 4,213 |

Source: DEFRA Key Performance Indicator 20 Increase in household waste recycled or composted

Target Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment facilities (once established in SRDFs).

The Mayor published the Recycling and Recovery facilities Sites investigation in London report in July 2005. This report has assessed London’s ability to manage 85% of its waste. The results indicate that in Central London the supply of waste facilities is heavily constrained and other sub regions will have to accommodate a proportion of its waste. South London also has a shortage of sites but should aim to be self sufficient. North and West London have capacity to be self sufficient and should also aim to accommodate a proportion of Central London’s waste. East London should become self sufficient as soon as possible and should accommodate a significant proportion of Central London’s waste.

Key Performance Indicator 21 Increased regional self-sufficiency for waste

Target 75% (16 million tonnes) of London’s waste treated or disposed of within London by 2010

The most recent estimates (2005) are that 60% of London’s waste was treated within London. The work being undertaken described under Key Performance Indicator 20, will assist in determining the nature of facilities needed to increase this to the 75% target.

Key Performance Indicator 22 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions

Target Reduce emissions to 23 per cent below 1990 levels by 2016.

Energy use and Carbon Dioxide emissions were reliably surveyed in 1991 and 2003. These show that overall CO₂ emissions are down by 9%, representing a positive policy direction. However within this there are varying trends. Population has increased by 8.5%. This has reduced the impact of total savings that have been achieved. The tones/resident figure shows a good level of reduction in line with the 2016 target. Within that reduction transport and commercial/industrial uses have decreased the most. The most worrying aspect of this target is that domestic energy use has increased by 30% between 1990 and 2003. This has only resulted in a 4% increase in CO₂ emissions due to the switch to cleaner energy production methods, notably gas. Table 36 London CO₂ Emissions 1991-2003

| | 1990\* | 1991\* | 2003\* | % change | |------------------|-------|-------|-------|----------| | Domestic | 15 817| 16 949| 16 445| +4% | | Commercial/industrial | 19 715| 19 932| 17 679| -10% | | Transport | 12 585| 12 280| 9 541 | -24% | | Total | 48 117| 49 160| 43 665| -9% | | Tonnes/resident | 7.08 | 7.2 | 5.91 | -17% |

\*Figures in 000s tonnes

Sources: 2003 Figures from London Energy and CO2 Emissions Inventory 1991 Figures from London Energy Study 1990 Figures back casted from 1991 figures

Key Performance Indicator 23 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources

Target Production of 945GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2010 including at least six large wind turbines.

The baseline position at 2001 was that London had capacity for 460Gwh of renewable energy generation. This comprised; 414 GWh electricity generation and 46 GWh heat generation. A new inventory of renewable energy generation will be prepared. A new inventory of renewable energy generation was due to be available from April 2006 however this was not resourced and is subsequently not available as was expected in AMR2. The GLA is implementing a monitoring system for strategic planning applications which will record the capacity to produce renewable energy.

A one off review of strategic planning applications by London South Bank University illustrated that approximately 9.6% of energy demand was being met by renewable sources in 2005/6. The London Energy Partnership is also due to publish a Wind and Biomass Study in the near future.

Key Performance Indicator 24 Ensure a sustainable approach to flood management.

Target No net loss of functional flood plain.

The Environment Agency has confirmed that it is not aware of any development that has resulted in a net loss of functional flood plain over the past year. However, it has become clear that there is no consistent definition of functional flood plain. This means that this target cannot be reported with a robust evidence base. The recently published PPS25 now places a requirement on boroughs to identify the functional floodplain through their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. Therefore the Mayor has proposed changing this target to “No net loss of functional floodplain within referable applications”. Clearly, it will take some time before a London wide picture of the functional flood plain is built up. In the interim the AMR will have to rely on the Environment Agency’s assessment. Key Performance Indicator 25 Protecting and improving London’s heritage and public realm

Target Reduction in the proportion of buildings at risk as a percentage of the total number of listed buildings in London.

Table 37 Proportion of Listed Building entries at risk in London

| | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |------------------|-------|-------|-------| | Total List Buildings entries | 18 495 | 18 510 | 18 528 | | No of Listed Buildings at risk | 644 | 667 | 652 | | Proportion at Risk | 3.48% | 3.6% | 3.52% |

Source: English Heritage Note AMR1 contained an error in the total of buildings at risk and the proportion at risk. The figure above for 2004 is now correct.

English Heritage has published a Register of Buildings at Risk in Greater London annually since 1991, containing information on all listed buildings known to be at risk from neglect, decay, under-use or redundancy. The 2006 Register reported that in London there were 23 Grade I listed buildings at risk, 63 Grade II\* listed buildings; and 566 Grade II listed buildings. There has been a small decrease in the proportion of buildings at risk on the previous year.

The Register of Buildings at Risk is available on http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1424 Annual Monitoring Report Appendix 2 – Contextual Indicators

Chapter 6 of the London Plan indicated a number of contextual indicators relating to London’s development, economy, environment, social and health status. The main part of the Annual Monitoring Report sets the overall context for London. There is also a huge amount of data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of links below should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.

Regular Briefings from the GLA Data Management and Analysis Group

Recent DMAG Briefings:

DMAG 2006/1 Census Information Note 2006-1 Eileen Howes DMAG 2006/2 Simpson’s diversity indices for wards 1991 and 2001 Gareth Piggott DMAG 2006/3 2001 Census: The health of a diverse population Gareth Piggott DMAG 2006/4 London borough residents country of birth Giorgio Finella DMAG 2006/5 GLA Resident Labour Force Projections John Hollis DMAG 2006/6 Parents and Work in London Lorna Spence DMAG 2006/7 Claimant Count Model: Technical Note 2006 Lorna Spence/ Georgia Hay DMAG 2006/8 Demography Team Workplan 2006-07 John Hollis DMAG 2006/9 Benefits Data for London: No. 4: Housing and Council Tax Benefits Lovedeep Vaid DMAG 2006/10 Household Representative Rates: Technical Report Georgia Hay DMAG 2006/11 Borough and Sub-regional Demographic Profiles, 2006 Georgia Hay DMAG 2006/12 Interim Household Projections John Hollis/ Georgia Hay DMAG 2006/13 Social Exclusion Team Workplan 2006-07 John Hollis DMAG 2006/14 Benefits Data for London: No 5 Pension Benefits Lovedeep Vaid DMAG 2006/15 Census Information Note 2006-2 Giorgio Finella DMAG 2006/16 2001 Census: Quality of origin-destination data Eileen Howes (ed) DMAG 2006/17 Sub-Regional Demographic Profiles 2006 Georgia Hay DMAG 2006/18 Independence for Statistics John Hollis DMAG 2006/19 Child Poverty in London Lorna Spence (ed) DMAG 2006/20 Benefits Data for London: 6 Tax Credits Lovedeep Vaid DMAG 2006/21 Family and Children’s Study 2004 Lovedeep Vaid DMAG 2006/22 GLA 2005 Round Interim Ethnic Group Population Projections Baljit Bains/ Edmund Klodawski DMAG 2006/23 A 2001 Census Ward Atlas of London Bill Armstrong DMAG 2006/24 National Insurance Registrations by overseas nationals Gareth Piggott DMAG 2006/26 A Profile of Londoners by First Language Lorna Spence DMAG 2006/27 2001 Census Profile: Jewish population of London Gareth Piggott/ Rob Lewis DMAG 2006/28 Review of the 2001 Census Small Area Microdata Rachel Leeser / Giorgio Finella DMAG 2006/29 Children dependent on benefits by Parliamentary Constituencies Lovedeep Vaid DMAG 2006/30 Londoners and the labour market: key facts Lorna Spence DMAG 2006/31 The Census Language Needs Indicator Gareth Piggott

A full list of DMAG Briefings is available to via the GLA’s website at: For more information on the London Development database either email Paul.Bowdage@london.gov.uk or phone 0207 983 4650.

**GLA Economics reports:** These are all available on the website http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/glaepublications.jsp or via www.london.gov.uk

**Recent reports with web-links**

- Retail in London: Working Paper D - Retail and Leisure - February 2006
- Women in London’s Economy – January 2006
- Current Issues Note 8: Comparison of London’s employment forecasts by gender – January 2006
- Working Paper 16: Women at Work… Looking Ahead - London employment projections by gender and sector – January 2006
- Working Paper 15: Worklessness in London – Explaining the differences between worklessness in London and the UK – January 2006
- Women in London’s Economy – January 2006
- Our London, Our Future: Planning for London’s Growth II - November 2005
- GLA Economics Annual Report - August 2005
- The Environmental Effectiveness of London: Comparing London with other English regions - June 2005
- From the Ganges to the Thames: An analysis of Indian FDI into London - June 2005
- The contribution of Asian-owned businesses to London’s economy - June 2005
- A Fairer London: The Living Wage in London - March 2005
- Time is money: The economic effects of transport delays in Central London - February 2005
- Ready for Business: The contribution of black businesses to London’s economy - February 2005
- Growing Together: London and the UK Economy - February 2005
- Women in London’s Economy - January 2005
- More residents, more jobs? - January 2005

**London Sustainable Development Commission**

Full details can be seen on the website www.london.gov.uk under the Sustainability menu.

**London Energy Partnership**

Full details can be found on the website http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/energy/partnership-steering-group/energypartnership.jsp

**Other data sources**

Municipal Waste Management Survey produced annually by DEFRA covering the previous Financial year. More up to date London specific data is available on: www.capitalwastefacts.com Transport data Various transport data can be found at the following sites: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/reports_library_stats.shtml

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/ltr2003/congestion-charging.shtml Contains details of vehicles entering the congestion charging zone.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_026295.hcsp

Department for Education and Skills Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following sites: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/nvg/links.shtml

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/trends/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showIndicator&cid=5&iid=36

Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs Various data and studies on the environment can be found at the following sites: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/opengov/accessinfo.htm

HM Treasury Various data and studies on the economy can be found at the following sites: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_sr02/

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/sectionhomepage/odpm_planning_page.hcsp Contains details of land use change and national planning statistics.

http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/targets2002/targets-overview.asp Contains details of National Neighbourhood Renewal Floor Targets and links to other Government websites where these will be implemented and monitored. Appendix 3

London Planning Awards winners

**Best planner/planning team public sector** 2003 – Slade Green Project, London Borough Bexley 2004 – Elephant & Castle Team, London Borough Southwark 2005 – Vivienne Ramsey, Head of Development & Building Control, LB Newham 2006 – Dockland Light Railway Planning Team

**Best planner/planning team private sector** 2003 – Llewelyn Davies 2004 – Hugh Bullock & the planning team at Gerald Eve 2005 – RPS Planning 2006 – Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design

**Best planning built project contributing to London’s future** 2003 – The Hothouse, Hackney, Free Form Arts 2004 – Paddington Central submitted by Development Securities 2005 – (Joint Winners) Bishops Square, Spitalfields Development Group and Imperial Wharf, St George Group plc 2006 – Arsenal on the Move Arsenal FC, Hepher Dixon, HOK Sport Architecture, Buro Happold

**Best planning conceptual project contributing to London’s future** 2003 – Ilford Town Centre 2004 – Lower Lea Valley Olympics and Legacy Masterplan submitted by Edaw 2005 – Grahame Park Regeneration, Levitt Bernstein and Pollard Thomas Edwards 2006 – Silvertown Quays, Montague Evans

**Best community/partnership initiative** 2003 – Stockwell Partnership 2004 – Bow Church Masterplan submitted by Leaside Regeneration Ltd 2005 – Cross River Partnership 2006 – Acton Town Square, LB Ealing

**Mayor’s Award for planning excellence** 2003 – The Hothouse, Hackney, Free Form Arts 2004 – Walthamstow Town Centre Revitalisation, London Borough Waltham Forest 2005 – Olympic and Paralympic Games and Legacy Teams, Joint Planning Authorities Team and London Development Agency 2006 – Arsenal on the Move Arsenal FC, Hepher Dixon, HOK Sport Architecture, Buro Happold

## Appendix 4

### Schedule of Progress on Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification

| Name of Location | Progress at Feb 2007 | |------------------|----------------------| | **Central London** | | | Waterloo | Opportunity Area Framework in progress in partnership with Lambeth, GLA, LDA, TfL and Network Rail. Public consultation held in 2006 and Planning Framework expected to be published in March 2007. | | London Bridge | Opportunity Area Framework being re-examined with LB Southwark and Lambeth taking into account relationship with Waterloo and Elephant & Castle, planning permission for Thameslink and several major office proposals. | | Elephant and Castle | Opportunity Area Framework in progress with Southwark leading, adopted as SPG by Southwark but some outstanding issues for the Mayor including road capacity. Links to be made to London Bridge as above. | | Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea | Draft Framework progressed, GLA encouraging collaboration between Lambeth and Wandsworth. Lambeth produced draft Vauxhall design guidance. | | King’s Cross | Draft planning framework produced by borough. Most strategic issues resolved and planning application submitted in 2006 and approved by boroughs, awaiting final agreement of Mayor, S106 agreement completed. | | Paddington | Mostly developed although station and hospital sites still to be fully resolved. | | Farringdon/Smithfield Now City Fringe | Joined with Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch to form City Fringe Opportunity Area – see below. | | Holborn | Joint work between Camden and Westminster for Holborn and Tottenham Court Road, now proposed as a single Opportunity Area in the Further Alterations to London Plan. | | Euston | Area for Intensification Framework not yet started. It is considered that the scale of development here means that this could become an Opportunity Area. | | Tottenham Court Road | See Holborn | | Victoria | Now proposed as an opportunity Area in the Further Alterations to London Plan, TfL discussion station aspects and tube works with Land Securities. | | Arsenal/Holloway | Major development well underway with opening of Council related uses and Emirates Stadium and remaining development in hand. Winners of Mayor’s Planning Award 2006. | | Name of Location | Progress at Feb 2007 | |------------------|---------------------| | **East London** | | | Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch/Whitechapel/ Aldgate Now City Fringe | Now known as City Fringe together with Farrindon/Smithfield. Following discussions with boroughs consultation on draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework expected in Spring 2007. | | Isle of Dogs | Draft Opportunity Area Framework forms an Action Area Plan within Tower Hamlets LDF which was consulted on in 2006. | | Stratford | Planning permission granted and masterplanning now underway including links with the Olympics related developments. | | Lower Lea Valley | Opportunity Area Framework published in February 2007 following consultation in 2005/6. Planning applications for Olympics development now anticipated. | | Royal Docks | Various large sites have masterplans and planning permissions. The City East project is now taking a longer term examination of the area and Newham are progressing an Action Area Plan as part of the LDF. 2006 saw progress with Silvertown Quays planning permission and winning a London Planning Award. Jan 2007 Peruvian Wharf planning decision confirms land uses in south of area. | | Barking Reach | Long history of masterplans. Outline planning application approved by borough in 2006 and awaiting decision by Mayor. Area forms part of London Riverside Opportunity Area Framework – see below. | | London Riverside | Work now being led by London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, draft Regeneration framework being worked on. | | Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside | Lewisham and Greenwich to prepare a joint Action Area Plan. | | Greenwich Peninsula | Planning permission granted 2003. Implementation now underway. | | Belvedere/ Erith | Borough led work in progress with involvement from GLA, LDA and TfL. | | Thamesmead | No framework yet but planning applications submitted for parts of the area. | | Ilford | Revised Action Area Plan produced in 2006 | | Beckton | See London Riverside above | | Woolwich town Centre/Royal Arsenal | 2500 residential units approved in 2006 and planning application for Town Hall site submitted. | | Kidbrooke | UDP Review sets out new housing target and changes to Metropolitan Open land and has been supported by Planning Inspector. Borough at an early stage in producing a planning framework. | | Name of Location | Progress at Feb 2007 | |----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **West London** | | | Wembley | Opportunity Area Framework adopted by Brent as SPG and endorsed by Mayor. Stadium nearing completion and other phases coming forward. | | White City | Joint borough, developer, GLA framework adopted as SPG by LBHF and endorsed by Mayor. Further masterplanning work undertaken in 2006 to be reported to Mayor in 2007. | | Park Royal | Work on an Opportunity Area Framework commenced between LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB H&F, Park Royal Partnership, GLA, LDA and TfL. Extending area to Willesden Junction, first draft expected Spring 2007. | | Heathrow/Feltham Bedfont/Hounslow | Joint Planning Framework to be progressed with the boroughs, LDA and GLA. | | Hayes/W Drayton/Southall/Stockley| Draft planning brief for gas works site agreed with Ealing and GLA. Intention to produce wider area framework involving Hillingdon. To be merged as a single Heathrow related Opportunity Area. | | Willesden Junction | This is now within Park Royal as above. | | **North London** | | | Upper Lee Valley | GLA, LDA and 3 boroughs and NLSA in partnership to progress a wide framework within which more detailed work will also sit. Visioning work undertaken by the boroughs during 2006. | | Tottenham Hale | Joint GLA/ LDA/ LBH work progress and consulted on in 2006. Key issue is re-modelling the gyratory road network. Funding assisted by ODPM Sustainable Communities Fund. | | Cricklewood/Brent Cross | Specific chapter in the Barnet UDP, agreed by Mayor, will form the Opportunity Area Framework. Area is being extended to include additional land to the east and to the west. | | Mill Hill East | LBB progressing an Area for Intensification Framework in partnership with landowner. | | Colindale | Area proposed as an Opportunity Area in Further Alterations to London Plan, needs to link to development opportunities in Brent. | | Haringey Heartlands/Wood Green | Area for Intensification Framework underway by LB Haringey with involvement from GLA, LDA and TfL. | | **South London** | | | Croydon Town Centre | Existing Croydon 20/20 Vision but will be updated to form an Action Area Plan as part of the LDF. | | South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood | Study underway with the LB Merton, LDA and GLA. | | **Further Proposals** | As a result of continual work Planning Frameworks to co-ordinate development and regeneration are now being considered by boroughs, GLA, TfL, LDA and other key stakeholders in the following areas: | | Brixton Crystal Palace Dalston | Finsbury Park/Woodberry Down Hackney Central | Appendix 5 National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators.

The DCLG has published a revised set of Core Output Indicators. The list below sets these out and how the London Plan AMR addresses each of them. This is a revised list to those found in previous AMRs.

| No. | National Indicator | London Plan Approach | |-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------| | | **Business Development** | | | 1a | Amount of land developed for employment by type: by local authority area. | See borough AMRs | | 1b | Amount of land developed for employment by type, which is in development and/or regeneration areas defined in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). | See borough AMRs | | 1c | Percentages of 1a by type, which is on previously developed land: by local authority area. | See borough AMRs | | 1d | Employment land supply by type: by local authority area. | See borough AMRs | | | **Housing** | | | 2a | Housing trajectory showing: (i) net additional dwellings over the previous five year period or since the start of the RSS period, whichever is the longer; (ii) net additional dwellings for the current year; (iii) projected net additional dwellings up to the end of the RSS period or over a ten year period from its publication, whichever is the longer; (iv) the annual net additional dwelling requirement; and (v) annual average number of net additional dwellings needed to meet overall housing requirements, having regard to previous years’ performances. | KPI 4 | | 2b | Percentage of new and converted dwellings on previously developed land. | KPI1 | | 2c | Percentage of new dwellings completed at: (i) less than 30 dwellings per hectare; (ii) between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare; and (iii) above 50 dwellings per hectare: by local authority area. | See borough AMRs | | 2d | Affordable housing completions: by local authority area. | KPI5 | | | **Transport** | | | 3 | Percentage of completed non-residential development complying with the car-parking standards set out in the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS): by local authority area. | See borough AMRs | | | **Regional Services** | | | 4a | Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development respectively: by local authority area. | See borough AMRs | | 4b | Percentage of completed retail, office and leisure development respectively in town centres. | See borough AMRs | | | **Minerals** | | | 5a | The production of primary land won aggregates (tonnes): by minerals planning authority. | See borough AMRs | | 5b | The production of secondary/recycled aggregates (tonnes): by minerals planning authority | See borough AMRs | | Waste | 6a | Capacity of new waste management facilities by type: by waste planning authority. | Data not held | |-------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| | | 6b | Amount of municipal waste arising and managed by management type and the percentage each management type represents of the total waste managed: by waste planning authority. | KPI 19 | | Flood Protection and Water Quality | 7 | Number of planning permissions, by local authority area, granted contrary to the advice of the Environment Agency on grounds of flood defence or water quality. | See borough AMRs | | Biodiversity | 8 | Change in areas and populations of biodiversity importance, including: (i) priority habitats and species (by type); and (ii) areas designated for their intrinsic environmental value including sites of international, national, regional or sub-regional significance. | KPI 18 | | Renewable Energy | 9 | Renewable energy capacity (MW) installed by type: by local authority area. | KPI 23 | Appendix 6 Affordability Thresholds for Social and Intermediate housing

Social Housing

There are three criteria in the definition of social housing:

- Housing is affordable in that rents are no greater than target rents as set by Government for local authority and housing association and co-operative tenants. Service charges should not be so great as to make a tenancy unaffordable for a household with an income of less than £16,900 (up-rated from the London Plan figure of £15,000) on the basis of rents and service charges not exceeding 30% of net household income.
- Social housing should be accessed on the basis of housing need.
- Social housing should be available as such on a long-term basis

It follows that privately rented housing could be considered as social housing where these criteria are met. This would normally only be the case where such provision operated under an accreditation or licensing scheme where nominations of tenants were either made by the local authority or under a framework of priorities agreed with the local authority.

Rented accommodation, which is let on the basis of short-term lets (tenancies or licences of under 5 years) should not be treated as social housing. Rented housing which is not available on the basis of housing need, and is allocated on the basis of other criteria, for example criteria related to the employment function of members of the household, should not be considered as social housing. Housing which is provided on a temporary basis should not be considered as social housing.

Intermediate Housing

Intermediate provision is sub-market housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £52,500 (as at February 2007) This figure has been up-rated from the London Plan figure of £40,000 and will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis to reflect changes in income house-price ratios.

This category can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision and market provision for outright purchase, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.

For the criterion that provision is affordable to be met, the purchase price must be no greater than 3.5 times the household income limit specified above (i.e. no greater than £183,750 at February 2007 prices), or the annual housing costs, including rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income. (This is to reflect a different level of disposable income, relative to lower income households dependent on social housing). In the case of two or multiple income households, lenders will generally lend at lower multipliers in relation to incomes of household members other than the highest income earner, and consequently market access will generally be more restricted for such households.

Further technical advice on application of affordability criteria is included in the GLA London Housing Requirements Study (December 2004).

Local Planning Authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges, to households for whom intermediate housing is provided are affordable by households on annual incomes of £35,600 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the £16,900- £52,500 range). On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £830 a month or £190 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). This figure could be used for monitoring purposes.

## Appendix 7 Mayoral activity on Development Plans

| LDFs/UDPs Commented on during 2006: | DPDs | |-----------------------------------|------| | **UDPs** | | | Waltham Forest UDP – Further Modifications | Hammersmith & Fulham Core Strategy – Issues & Options | | Greenwich UDP - Modifications | Hammersmith & Fulham Generic DC policies – Issues & Options | | Westminster UDP - Further Modifications | Hammersmith & Fulham Site Allocations – Issues & Options | | Camden UDP - Modifications | Barking & Dagenham Core Strategy - Issues & Options | | Barnet UDP – Further Modifications | Barking & Dagenham Borough-wide DC policies - Issues & Options | | Croydon UDP - Modifications | Barking & Dagenham Site Allocations - Issues & Options | | Lambeth UDP - Inspector’s Report | Merton Core Strategy - Issues & Options | | Haringey UDP Modifications | Merton Generic DC policies - Issues & Options | | Greenwich UDP Further Modifications| Merton Site Allocations - Issues & Options | | Southwark UDP – Inspector’s Report | Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan (Bromley) – Preferred Options | | Westminster UDP Further Modifications | Havering Core Strategy – Preferred Options | | Westminster UDP Further Modifications (direct from TfL) | Havering Generic DC policies – Preferred Options | | Southwark UDP Proposed Modifications | Havering Site Allocations – Preferred Options | | Southwark UDP Modifications | Islington Core Strategy - Preferred Options | | Lambeth UDP Modifications | Hackney Core Strategy and DC policies – Issues and Options | | **SPDs** | | | Bexley Affordable housing - SPD | Hounslow Employment DPD – Preferred Options | | Porters Way (Hillingdon) - SPD | Brentford AAP (Hounslow) - Preferred Options | | Ealing - SPDs (first tranche) | Finsbury Park AAP (Islington) – Preferred Options | | Sutton Affordable Housing – SPD | Newham Core Strategy – Preferred Options | | Merton Planning Obligations – SPD | Royal Docks & Thameside West AAP (Newham) – Preferred Options | | Hackney Planning Obligations SPD | Ealing Core Strategy – Issues & Options | | Redbridge SPDs (first tranche) | Ealing Core Site Allocations - Issues and Options | | Westminster Planning Obligations SPD | Merton Core Strategy Issues and Options (Further Consultation) | | Hillingdon Access SPD | Merton Generic DC policies - Preferred Options (Further Consultation) | | Sutton Planning Obligations SPD | Merton Site Allocations - Preferred Options (Further Consultation) | | Islington Nags Head Town Centre SPD| Kingston AAP (Kingston) further pre-submission consultation | | Kensington & Chelsea Access Design Guide SPD | City of London Core Strategy - Issues and Options | | Princess Louise Hospital Planning Brief (Kensington & Chelsea) SPD | Ilford Town Centre APP (Redbridge) – Preferred Options | | Tottenham Hale Urban Centre Masterplan (Haringey) SPD | Islington Development Control DPD - Issues and Options | | Westminster Open Spaces Strategy SPD | Islington Site Allocations DPD - Issues and Options | | Archway SPD – (Islington) (consultation on options prior to formal consultation) | Kensington & Chelsea Site Allocations DPD -Issues and Options | | Islington Urban Design SPD | Romford Town Centre AAP (Havering) – Preferred Options | | Camden Supplementary Planning Guidance SPD | Gants Hill Town Centre AAP (Redbridge) – Issues and Options | | Wembley West End (Brent) SPD | Harrow Core Strategy – Issues and Options | | Barnet Affordable Housing SPD | Harrow Sites Allocations Issues and Options | | Southwark Planning Obligations SPD (Informal) | Sutton Core Strategy - Issues and Options | | Hackbridge (Sutton) SPD | Brent Core Strategy - Preferred Options | | Bexley Sustainable Design & Construction SPD (Informal) | Wandsworth Core Strategy - Issues and Options (further consultation) | | Bromley Affordable housing SPD | Wandsworth Site Allocations DPD – Issues and Options (further consultation) | | **OTHER** | | | Havering Sustainable Construction Interim Planning Guidance | Bexley Core Strategy – Issues and Options | | Romford Town Centre (Havering) – Interim Planning Guidance | Tower Hamlets Core Strategy & Development Control DPD - Submission | | Blackhorse Lane IPG (Waltham Forest) | Leaside Area Action Plan - Submission | | Westminster Entertainment SPG | City Fringe Area Action Plan - Submission | | Berwick Street Westminster SPG | Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan - Submission | During 2006 the Mayor sought a direction from the Secretary of State to modify a UDP in three boroughs (Barnet, Greenwich, and Bromley). Directions were subsequently issued to Greenwich, in respect of waste safeguarding, and Bromley, in respect of housing density. The Direction to Bromley resulted in a further modification. Unfortunately, the Direction for Greenwich was subsequently withdrawn without further modifications being prepared. This was done to enable the borough to adopt the UDP before the 21 July 2006 deadline after which plans adopted without a strategic environmental assessment could have been subject to legal challenge. Because of this, and because of Directions not being issued on other matters requested, the Mayor wrote to four boroughs (Barnet, Bromley, Camden and Greenwich) to formally state that the adopted UDPs were not in general conformity with the London Plan.

This strategic environmental assessment deadline was a spur for a number of boroughs and seven out of the ten UDPs were adopted by the 21 July 2006. The remaining three should be adopted early in 2007.

The remaining 23 boroughs have been making progress in replacing their UDPs with Local Development Frameworks. However, in the majority of cases progress has been slower than anticipated in the original development scheme. This slippage has been caused by a number of factors, including: unexpected delays in preparing strategic environmental assessments; an unprecedented number of boroughs changing political control in the May local elections; insufficient allocation of resources, and; the ‘fall-out’ from the first two core strategies in the country that were examined being found unsound (in Stafford and Lichfield).

Two boroughs (Kingston and Hounslow) have progressed on Area Action Plans or topic based development plan documents in advance of their core strategy. Of the remaining 21 all but Enfield have now progressed to at least issues and options for the core strategy. In 2006 the Mayor responded to 11 core strategy issues and options documents (seven of these also consulted on development control and or site allocations development plans documents as well). The Mayor also responded to four core strategy preferred options consultations (one of these also consulted on development control and site allocations development plans documents as well). The Mayor also responded to six area action plan and one topic based preferred options consultations.

Only two boroughs (Tower Hamlets and Havering) have submitted their Core Strategy and Development Control document to the Secretary of State for examination. Havering also submitted its Sites Allocation document and Tower Hamlets submitted three area action plans. The Mayor has provided an opinion on general conformity on the Tower Hamlets documents, concluding that the documents are not in general conformity on a limited number of policy areas. He has also made a number of other representations based on the other tests of soundness. He will give an opinion on general conformity to Havering when the consultation ends in January 2007. A number of other boroughs were due to submit documents to the Secretary of State towards the end of 2006. However, in light of the Stafford and Lichfield decisions these have been delayed. For the same reason some boroughs have carried out further issues and options consultation, which the Mayor has responded to.

As stated in the main AMR, supplementary planning documents must also be in general conformity with the London Plan and boroughs should consult the Mayor for an opinion on general conformity where appropriate. The Mayor responded to 24 consultations in 2006. The Mayor also responded to five consultations on non-statutory documents (such as interim planning guidance notes). Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below: Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA

Telephone 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk

You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require. If you would like a copy of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above. Chinese

Hindi

Vietnamese

Bengali

Greek

Urdu

Turkish

Arabic

Punjabi

Gujarati

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA

www.london.gov.uk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458

MoL/Feb 06/D&P/MR/GLA 741